1951-12-21

Mr. J. M. Dechene (Alhabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not very often take up the time of the house. May I remind hon. members that I have not taken one minute during this session. Yesterday afternoon perhaps I was somewhat out of order when, good-naturedly and in the spirit of Christmas at this time of the year when we are again preparing to celebrate the anniversary of the Prince of Peace, I interjected, when the leader of the opposition was speaking, the words "Merry Christmas". If I did wrong I am willing to apologize but I do not think I did, and I do not think I deserved the answer made by the hon. gentleman. I have last night's Ottawa Journal which carries this report as to what the leader of the opposition replied:
"I am glad to see one of the members has anticipated the season," said Mr. Drew.
Such an insinuation was not deserved by me from that or any other comer of the house. I remind the hon. gentleman that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. But this matter goes further.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I wish to take just a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. members who are calling order have wasted hours and hours during this session and I have not. I am getting to be an aged man. I have been in public life for fifty years. I was elected a member of the Alberta legislature over thirty years ago, and I can boast that the reputation I left there is a good one. So far as the electors of the constituency of Athabaska are concerned, an unjust, unfair and uncalled-for insinuation of that kind will not do me any harm because I am too well known. It will only mean that the hon. gentleman's party will lose the few votes they had in that constituency. I am entitled to say that. I have some justice coming to me in this house as well as the hon. gentleman. I can trace my ancestry back to 1764.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Fraser:: There is a limit.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably the hon. member has gone far enough.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I have a family to defend and a reputation to protect.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member's reputation has been attacked in this house. I have given him considerable latitude. Probably he might conclude with a few remarks.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I was only going to make a few more remarks. Ever since 1774 and the passing of the Quebec Act both sides of my family have been represented in the House of Commons or in the legislature either of Quebec or of Alberta. I am proud of that; and we will not stop there. That is why I felt I had to raise this matter and deny the insinuation.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I
am wholly unable to understand what the hon. member for Athabaska is speaking about. It will be recalled that during the debate yesterday, at a time when I was speaking and when we were discussing matters before the house, there was a very loud and clear interjection, "Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas". I said I was very pleased to note that one hon. member was anticipating the season. I think a great many hon. members have indicated clearly that they are anticipating it. It was in that sense I meant my remark, and if the hon. member has taken any other meaning I am sure he has taken a meaning that was not the proper or correct interpretation of the words.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, today is another day, and I am sure we were all glad this morning when we got up to see that the blustery weather of yesterday had subsided. I thank the leader of the opposition for the remarks he has made about the hon. member who raised a question of privilege. I am sure all hon. members understood the remark of the leader of the opposition in the sense he has indicated and not as disparaging in any way, because I know that all members hold the hon. member for Athabaska in high regard and recognize that he deserves our respect and friendship.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27

[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. L. S. SI. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I indicated in reply to an observation from the other side of the house that if it should prove necessary for hon. members to return after Christmas to complete the business of the session I would give notice today that the government would move to apply closure in respect of the second reading of Bill No. 36. That statement was made on the assumption that both yesterday and today would have been taken up with the debate on second reading of that bill, and it would have been made rather clear that repetitious debate might go on indefinitely under the ordinary yules. As a matter of fact the bill was not debated yesterday, and the government wishes it to be abundantly clear that no member is to be deprived of his right to make his position quite clear on that bill. I will therefore not give any such notice today, and I hope that the progress that may be made under the ordinary rules will be such that it will not be appropriate to give that notice at any time.
With respect to the notice of motion that has been on the order paper, that was not put on in any arbitrary spirit but merely because I felt that, if it should become clear that we could not finish the business of the house before Christmas, hon. members would wish to have at leasrt a long week end for Christmas, and that would require a derogation from the orders that have been made. When notices of motion are called, if it were satisfactory to the house, I would ask to have this motion stand until some time later today so that we could see then whether or not it will be appropriate to have it discussed. If, on the other hand, members prefer to have it dealt with immediately, I would of course move it in its regular order. But if it could stand until some time later today, it may be that we shall then see what would best suit the convenience of hon. members, because it is not the wish of the government to be arbitrary in this respect.
On the order:
Government notice of motion-The Prime Minister -Resolved, that notwithstanding any other previous order of this house, when this house adjourns on Friday, December 21, 1951, unless it be otherwise ordered at that time, it stand adjourned until Thursday, December 27. 1951, at eleven o'clock a.m.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Stand until later this day, if thait
is agreeable.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DUMPING OF TEXTILES ON CANADIAN MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that nylons and textiles are being dumped on the Canadian market to the detriment of thousands of Canadian workers? Are any effective measures being taken to relieve this serious unemployment situation.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: If it is true, Mr. Speaker, that textiles are being dumped, the recourse is to the Department of National Revenue who have remedial legislation for that situation. Of course, it has to be proven that dumping is taking place. It is not a matter for the Department of Trade and Commerce, but whoever feels injured should take up the matter with the Department of National Revenue.


John Alpheus Charlton: May I ask the Minister of National Revenue if he has had any representations on this subject?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I think there is a misconception in the minds of a great number of members of parliament, and the public, as to what constitutes dumping according to the law. Dumping occurs when goods from a foreign country are imported into this country at a price lower than that at which they are sold to the jobber, wholesaler or consumer in the country of origin. This is a matter which is under careful consideration every day, and the record shows that we have not evidence that dumping is actually taking place with regard to textiles.
There has been some dumping, and when it has occurred the dumping duty has been applied. This means that the invoice has been raised to a price comparable to that at which the goods are sold in the country of origin and both tariff and sales taxes are applied upon that new invoice price. As I have said, the situation is carefully reviewed continuously, and if there are occasions on which the dumping duty can be rightfully applied it will be and has been applied.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: Is
the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries aware of the loss and damage

that has been occasioned fishing gear and equipment in southwest Nova Scotia owing to the severe storms that took place this week, with winds reported as high as eighty miles an hour lashing the coast? If he is aware, is he prepared to order an immediate investigation by officials of his department to ascertain the extent of this damage, and consider what means may be adopted to assist the fishermen who have had such severe financial losses?


Mr.  J. Watson. MacNaughl@Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries: I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question. The Department of Fisheries is aware that there were severe storms in southwest Nova Scotia, but no reports have been received concerning the extent of damage that may have been done.



INTERNATIONAL PEACE GARDEN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: My question to the Minister of
Resources and Development arises out of an answer which he gave to a question of mine appearing in Hansard for Wednesday, December 19, 1951, at page 2190. Will reconsideration be given to the matter of continuing the $15,000 grant to the international peace garden? I should like to ask the minister if it is not possible, in view of the large sums we are spending on defence, to continue paying these few dollars in support of a project dedicated to peace.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer in Hansard was as full as one could give. These [DOT] matters always receive the consideration of the government when consideration is required.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As reported in Hansard of December 19 at page 2190, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning this peace garden project to which there has been some reference this morning, the Minister of Resources and Development intimated that certain members of the house had already made representation. I should like to indicate that, along with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), some weeks ago I approached the minister on this matter. As is well known to
Inquiries of the Ministry the members of this house, the peace garden project was one of the major interests of my predecessor in this house, the late Mr. J. E. Matthews.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter is not one of privilege. Unless the hon. member is allowed to make a brief statement-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to continue.


Robert Henry Winters: As to that
particular question, Mr. Speaker, I think it only fair to say that I was also approached by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), by our party whip, the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir), by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) and by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler).


Mr. Mutch:: Look around this way too.


Robert Henry Winters: In fact, I think it is safe to say that I have been approached by virtually every member from the province of Manitoba.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: In view of the stage of the session which we have reached, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in relation to an article which appears in the December 22 issue of the Financial Post. This very responsible publication makes the positive statement that requests by NATO nations that Canada supply them with economic aid in the form of free Canadian wheat and aluminum promise to become a highly controversial issue. Then it goes on to say that thus far Canada has given a flat rejection.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is in a position to inform the house concerning this matter, especially in view of the fact that other governments have already dealt with subjects arising out of the discussions relating to this very problem. It would seem that we should have some information about our position before we terminate this session.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: In regard to that matter I can only say this at this time: No report has yet been received by the government from

Inquiries of the Ministry the temporary committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, that is the twelve members who have been charged with the responsibility of going into this whole question of resources and requirements. What has happened is that an executive board of that committee consisting of three members has drafted a report to the committee of twelve, and that committee of twelve is still considering that report. The consideration has not yet been completed and may not be completed for a fortnight or so. Until a report comes from the committee of twelve, and not merely the committee of three, it would be obviously inappropriate for me to make any comment on this matter.


Mr. Graydon:: There is a good supply of committees, anyway.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris), as I have had cases of immigrants from the United Kingdom who have been stranded in my own district owing to the fact that they have not been able to secure work. Will the minister say what is being done to look after those people who cannot find work in Canada at the present time?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, immigrants from the United Kingdom are, by our laws, free to come here whether there is assured employment for them or not. Nevertheless the government attempts to find employment for those people both through the settlement service of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and also through the good offices of the national employment service of the Department of Labour. If my hon. friend has any particular persons in mind and will let us know about them, we will do our best to place them. Nevertheless, we do not necessarily accept full responsibility for those who may be free to come here without assured employment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I may say to the minister that these people were assured of employment before they came over.



UNITED STATES SELECTIVE SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the
tMr. Pearson.]
Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). On December 19 certain questions were asked of the minister with regard to the United States selective service act as it affects Canadian citizens. I asked the minister if there was any consultation between the two governments and the minister replied:
I would have to look into that.
I wonder if the minister has looked into the matter and if he can tell us whether there has been consultation or if our government has made any representations with regard to this matter, since it affects Canadian citizens in the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have some additional information on this matter which deals with the question which has just been raised by my hon. friend. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked the other day if the action of the United States in this matter of the application of the United States selective service act to Canadians was unilateral with respect to Canada and not to other nations. That was one of his questions. The reply to that is that the United States law is applicable to all aliens "residing in the United States" except those who are nationals of a country with which there is in effect a treaty or international agreement exempting the nationals of that country from military service while they are within the United States. No treaty or agreement of this nature exists between Canada and the United States.
In reply to the other part of the question which the hon. member asked me, I may say that no representations have been made to the United States government except in a number of individual cases in which it seemed that there had been an incorrect application of the law by local authorities. In such cases representations were made.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) inquired about the position of students and temporary employees. The regulations are somewhat complex in this matter, but ordinarily bona fide students receive specific student visas and are not required to register in the United States under the selective service act. Persons temporarily employed in the United States for periods of less than six months similarly are not required to register and in consequence do not come within the provisions of the act unless their period of employment exceeds six months.


Major James William Coldwell: Would it not be well to endeavour to negotiate with the United States a treaty similar to that which exists between

the United States and certain other countries whose nationals are not treated as Canadian nationals are being treated under the selective service act of the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We can give consideration to this; but I am not sure that there is any such treaty between the United States and other countries covering this matter.


Major James William Coldwell: I took it from what was said that there were such treaties.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said if there was such a treaty; whether there are any treaties or not, I do not know. Whether Canada should have such a treaty is another matter, and we can look into it.



EXPORT OF CANADIAN FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). As the United States have put into force the trading with the enemy act with regard to funds going to communist China, has the Department of Justice considered putting into force the defence of the realm act with regard to Canadian funds going to communist China?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Not as yet.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), or probably both, in view of the fact that I have had representations from some labour men in my riding who are employed making parts for refrigerators. They claim that last year less than 500 refrigerators came from the United States whereas this year the number is 98,000, and that they are affected by having lay-offs in the plant owing to this fact. I was wondering whether the minister has had any similar representations from any other sections of the country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have had representations; but I think the facts are that resale price maintenance has had more to do with the situation than has dumping.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The 15 per cent excise tax.
Combines Investigation Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: The 15 per cent excise tax
applies on imports as well as on home manufactures.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson for the second reading of Bill No. 36, to amend the Combines Investigation Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fulton.
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the evening just before the big storm I was on my feet addressing the house on the question of this particular bill. This morning I propose to curtail my remarks materially in order that the business may be proceeded with. What I have to say will redirect the attention of the house to the legislation that has been before us.
To recapitulate briefly what I said the other evening, I had drawn attention to the fact that, on October 9, an indication had been given that legislation would be brought down dealing with this particular subject and that it was not until December 17 that the bill appeared before the house. I was going on from that point to indicate that there was a serious weakness in this legislation. I had intended making a comparison between legislation which has in it good features and meets with general approval and legislation which does not meet with general approval and which therefore must, on the face of it, be considered to be unsound.
Resuming my remarks at that point, I would say -that we have had evidence in this session that legislation that has met with general approval has passed through this house without great delay. There has been full debate and discussion, but no great delay. An example of that is the legislation dealing with pensions for disabled veterans. But I point out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that there are many examples. to show that this legislation does not meet with general approval. The lengthy debate that has ensued upon it is one bit of evidence. The fact that supporters of the government side have risen to express their lack of approval of this legislation is another indication, and the general public reaction, showing a divided opinion throughout the country, indicates that this is definitely contentious legislation, and contentious legislation normally gets a rough passage through the House of Commons, as is quite proper.

Combines Investigation Act
Along with many members of the public, I was not very well informed with regard to the subject of resale price maintenance, until this debate was entered upon in this house and the committee held its varying sittings. My first reaction to the subject must have been the reaction of many people. I thought that something should be done about it. Then I discovered that resale price maintenance affected only a small part of the retail business, and I modified my opinion. I noticed from the report that in the early stages Mr. McGregor said, when asked a question as to how extensive was this practice, that he had heard the figure of 5 per cent, 10 per cent, 15 per cent and perhaps 30 per cent. That changes the picture for one who is looking at it for the first time. Subsequently, figures were produced showing that it was in the drug business that resale price maintenance was more extensive than say in the grocery business. Then I discovered that this practice had been in existence for a great many years, and I wondered why no action had been taken before. Why was this particular moment of time selected for action on resale price maintenance?
During the course of the sittings of the committee hearing and from members who were on it and subsequently in debate in the house here I discovered that not all the evidence was heard by the committee and not all the submissions that were to be presented to that committee were considered or heard. That raised a doubt in my mind as to the effectiveness of the work of the committee, and of the value of the legislation that was proposed. I read with the greatest interest Mr. McGregor's submission to the committee. I naturally, as members of the public do, respect his judgment in matters of this kind because of his lengthy experience; but I did notice that Mr. McGregor, after 25 years' experience with combines investigations, with knowledge of resale price maintenance, was not aware of the extent of the practice. At page 607 of the committee's evidence, at the top of the page, in reply to a question put to Mr. McGregor, asking him about the effect the proposed legislation would have on the cost of living, he made this answer:
Mr. St. Laurent had in mind, I presume, that a very inconsiderable number of items that are included in the cost of living index are in the price maintained area. After all, resale price maintenance does affect only one segment of all retail selling.
Q. What percentage? A. I have heard estimates from 10 to 15 to 30 per cent.
Q. You don't know definitely? A. No, I don't.
If Mr. McGregor does not know I certainly do not know, and I imagine the general public does not know, and it did occur to


me that surely a committee investigating this matter should have been able to bring out the evidence to indicate the extent of this practice. Reading Mr. McGregor's evidence I noticed he was of the opinion that there were too many outlets which, again in his opinion, were sustained by resale price maintenance. That is, he intimated that there were some stores operating in the country whose existence perhaps could be maintained only because of the advantage the storekeeper gained by having on his shelves articles sustained in price by resale price maintenance. Well, that I judged was an opinion, and perhaps the opinion of other people would be just as valuable or of some value in offsetting Mr. McGregor's opinion. If there has been an increase in the number of outlets, the number of retail stores, you would have to consider in connection with that the increase in the population. You cannot just take a figure and say, well, there are several hundred or a thousand more stores than there were a few years ago, without at the same time deciding on what has been the extent of the increase in the population. So it seemed to me that that was not a particularly weighty opinion, and I was a bit disturbed-I do not want to do any injustice to Mr. McGregor- at what appears from the evidence as perhaps a lack of concern on his part as to whether some of these outlets, as they were called, should be discontinued. Then again I began to consider in my mind the possible effects of this legislation, and I looked to see what Mr. McGregor would say with regard to that. I found that he said it might have a pretty disturbing effect for the time being- Well, that means that conditions, if they would not be chaotic-perhaps that is too wide a term to use-nevertheless if rather upsetting conditions would prevail for a considerable period of time among the retail merchants, that, I think, is a bit unsettling to everybody who is concerned with stability within our society.
I do not think any great benefit would result to our country if pretty disturbing effects are felt by the passage of this legislation and the abolition of resale price maintenance. It is for that reason I would suggest that certain delay might very well be considered until all the implications of the possible effects of this legislation have been considered. The small retail merchant, I know, from lengthy experience in small towns and in cities, is a person whose position deserves consideration and a certain amount of protection. The retail merchant, as has been pointed out-I do not want to repeat all the things that have been said before-

in most of our cities and towns occupies a commanding position. Certainly in any town in which I have lived the retail merchant is a solid citizen. He has land and owns property in the business section of the town. He owns residential property, and is interested in the future of the community in which he lives. He takes a keen interest in the development of that community, and frequently is to be found on municipal councils and school boards.
If there is some advantage to be gained by the retail merchant through resale price maintenance, an advantage that has cost the consumer something extra-and this has not yet been proved to my satisfaction-but if that should be so, is it not a just and reasonable price to pay for a very effective and useful community service?
Those are some of the thoughts that have passed through my mind with regard to the retail merchant. I would not like to see his position disturbed. In the constituency I have the honour to represent there exists one of the greatest shopping centres in Canada. I refer to the celebrated Portage avenue, which extends from Main street, westward to the city limits for a very considerable distance, and for most of that distance has on either side of it business establishments.
We have the large departmental stores, chain stores and all manner of smaller retail stores. Within that area there is a difference of opinion with regard to this particular matter. My understanding, from the evidence given to the committee and statements made here in the house, is that the large retail stores are not particularly concerned about the legislation and are not opposing it, whereas the smaller retail merchant is offering vigorous opposition. There is a conflict of interest there.
I have been hearing from my constituents on this matter. I have had more than thirty communications on the mimeographed form to which attention has been drawn earlier this session, and I have had between fifteen and twenty telegrams from businessmen who are seriously concerned with this problem. And the consumers, certainly with no more information than I had when I first came to this session, as well as information that emerged from the investigation by the committee of the house, and of course interested in a reduction in the cost of living, and being influenced by statements in the speech from the throne and other remarks earlier in the session, have naturally sent communications to me concerning this matter. They have hoped that this would be one way in which the cost of living would be reduced.
Combines Investigation Act
Retail merchants, with a greater knowledge of the facts, have sent telegrams and letters to me suggesting that it would not be a good thing, and that it should be opposed.
Again I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that there is a distinct conflict of opinion in the constituency I represent, and that that should be taken into account.
I shall conclude with just these few remarks. My consideration of the problem indicates that a very small segment of the problem of the retail merchant is concerned. The figure of 15 per cent has been suggested as one which might be acceptable. I have come to the conclusion that no effect will be felt by way of a reduction in the cost of living. I have reached the conclusion that the retail merchants would desire some protection against the loss-leader practice, if this legislation goes through. I have reached the further conclusion that the small retail merchant is in danger.
Consequently I suggest that in view of this divided opinion in the house and in the committee, and in the community at large, legislation such as this should be postponed for more complete investigation. If it is the determination of the government to pass it there should be more than just a verbal assurance that the small merchant will be protected. Something should be included in the measure to give him that protection.
In any case I think delay would be a sensible procedure, until the full implications of this proposed legislation are considered. So far as I am concerned, I say that three conditions should be satisfied before the legislation is passed:
The first condition I have laid down is this, to establish convincing evidence that resale price maintenance is detrimental to the public interest.
Secondly, produce evidence that the abolition of resale price maintenance will result in a decrease in the cost of living of the consumer.
Third, produce evidence that the abolition of resale price maintenance will not harm the smaller retailer.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the suggestion made in the house recently by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and also the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) that no purpose would be served by further debate on this measure, I wish to make one suggestion to hon. members that I believe warrants their consideration as to how far this house should go in approving the measure now before us.

Combines Investigation Act
This whole price discussion started in 1948 with a committee of the house set aside to debate it. From that, a royal commission was set up. Then the MacQuarrie committee was established to study, supposedly, the findings of the royal commission, and to carry forward the study of the Combines Investigation Act.
Then, this fall, just before the beginning of the session, apparently the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was very anxious to get a report from the MacQuarrie committee, and asked that committee to give him an interim report with respect to combines legislation or, more particularly, price maintenance practices.
During the debate in reply to the speech from the throne the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made this very clear statement on October 15, as reported at page 42 of Hansard:
I do not think that is going to have a very substantial effect on the index oi the cost of living.
That was very plain. It was a plain statement by the Prime Minister to the effect that, although the government was bringing forward this legislation, he did not believe it would have any great effect on the cost of living.
However, instead of bringing down the legislation earlier in the session the government set up another committee of the House and the Senate to study further, at tremendous cost to the country, this proposition. What did this committee accomplish? It Served only to confuse the issue and failed to make any material contribution or provide any enlightenment on the question. What happened yesterday can be described only as a club being held over the heads of members of our party.
Being a farmer I was interested in the brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, as was the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Boucher), but not quite from the same angle. I cannot understand the attitude taken by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in connection with this particular matter. I should like to quote what I think is a very significant statement which appears in the brief, as follows.
The government of Canada for many years has recognized that modern industry has produced' a set of conditions which are radically different from, let us say, a hundred years ago, when economic activity was based largely on relatively small industrial units in active competition with one another. The steady growth of large scale business concerns has tended to create concentrations of economic power which fosters the growth of monopolistic competition or -imperfect competition rather than the simple competition of classical economic theory.
I think you, sir, and other members of this house, will agree with that old saying


that it is the little things that count. The very foundation of our country and of democracy is the little things. They are the backbone of any nation. The little farmers, the little businesses, the little industries, the little communities; they are the things that count. What has happened? In the last few years big farmers have been buying up little farmers; big business has been absorbing little businesses; big industries are buying up little industries; big communities are swallowing up little communities.
The normal business practice over the past one hundred years- it will probably be the same in the future-has been to eliminate opposition. This process has been speeded up considerably in the last few years, apparently with the blessing of this government. Is it that the government are not satisfied, and we are now being asked to add legislation to the statute books in this hasty manner which obviously will accelerate that procedure and centralize to the extreme?
This in effect is nothing more than "mailorder catalogue legislation" brought in by the now tabulated minister of make-believe to quiet down public concern over the increasing cost of living. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and one other member that I know of-I heard him say it-have indicated that it will have very little effect on the cost of living.
The federation of agriculture has always tried to get more stable markets for agricultural products by fixing the prices of various commodities. That has been the policy of our farm organizations for years, and I agree with it. But what has been sauce for the goose should be sauce fer -the gander. We cannot make fish of the one and flesh of the other. It is significant that at a time when we are moving toward the acceptance of policies designed to give price stability in the field of agricultural products a measure should come before this parliament that would outlaw such practices in another field.
Agricultural price legislation was brought into being after many years of study, a more detailed study than has been given to this measure having to do with the field of retail prices. The agricultural price legislation was given the closest study by agricultural groups from British Columbia to the maritimes, and by government officials, provincial and federal, all across the country. In some cases it has resulted in legislation which serves to establish even the retail price to the consumer. If it is right and lawful in the one field, why is it not so in the other?

I submit that if such ia large group of people in Canada have come to this conclusion after a very detailed study, more detailed than has been given to this measure, then we should tread lightly in destroying a similar practice in the general merchandising field in this country. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is quite familiar with this trend in the marketing of agricultural products.
I am sure that this house will await with interest an explanation from him as to how this practice can be so good in one case and so detrimental in another, as his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), would have us believe.
In closing I should like to give one note of warning to hon. members who may be still inclined to support this measure. If the government persists in placing this ill-considered, hasty and far-reaching legislation on the statute books of this country they will by their action sow the seeds that will eventually destroy the whole basis upon which the marketing of agricultural products and the stability of agricultural prices are presently being maintained.


Mr. Gardiner:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Had I voted,
I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Gibson:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Essex West (Mr. Brown). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. While (Middlesex East):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's Wesl):: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Had X voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Calherwood:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Kent (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted, I certainly would have voted for the amendment. [DOT]


Major James William Coldwell: realize, Mr. Speaker, that we are to attend at the other place for royal assent to certain bills, but I believe I shall be able to finish what I have to say before we leave this chamber. The debate on this particular matter really began on November 2, and was continued on November 6. At that stage there were twenty-six speeches. The problem went to a special committee of the house which heard eight hundred pages of evidence. Finally, a report was made to this house on December 7. The debate on the bill which came to us as a result of the committee's deliberations began on December 17, continued on the 18th and 19th. There were twenty-nine speeches, three of them over two hours in length. Yesterday, of course, we had a debate on procedure when thirty-six speeches were made, and an inferential debate continued on the measure still under discussion. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel there is very much need for me to say a great deal about the amendment I propose to move at

Combines Investigation Act this stage. I feel that all possible considerations, both for and against the bill, have been placed before the house, and that the amendment I am about to move I explained quite fully in my speech on December 17. Consequently, as I say, I do not propose to say much about it today. I think that we should avoid endless repetition.
This measure has received widespread support throughout the country. The federation of agriculture has placed its support behind this measure, as have the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Co-operative Union of Canada and the Canadian Association of Consumers. Consequently, I take it that the measure is, ini the main, reasonably satisfactory to very large groups of people in this country who have spoken' through their various organizations, as is their democratic right. I am sorry, however, that the bill does not contain certain provisions. I have to move that the bill be not now read a second time, because that is the only form that one can use. But I hope that the house will accept the amendment that I propose to move, and that the bill may be strengthened in regard to the matters I have already mentioned. Even if that were not the case, I think the bill as it stands is preferable to leaving the matter as it has been. We have had a number of investigations into price maintenance, either directly in a few cases or indirectly in a number of cases, by the combines investigation commissioner. I do not need to enumerate them. I regret that the bill does not give some protection, which I think many retailers have quite legitimately requested, against price cutting and the advertising of loss leaders. As I said on Monday, I think the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), when he made a motion before the special committee, moved something that was worthy of more consideration than it received. I also think some steps should be taken to prevent the discrimination that exists as between big dealers and small dealers.
Manufacturers give substantial discounts to dealers who buy large quantities of goods. This makes it more difficult for the individual small retailer to compete with these large organizations. I should have liked to have seen something in the bill to regulate this. I said the other afternoon, and I repeat, that certain of our farm commodities such as wheat are sold at the same unit price per bushel whether an individual buys fifty bushels, a hundred bushels or a million bushels. I think something might be done along those lines. I will not say that you could completely overcome inducements to buy in large quantities. I think we could enact legislation that would at least regulate this factor.
[Mr. Coldwell.l

As I said the other day, my amendment is in line with what I believe the Trades and Labour Congress recommended to the committee, and I thought that organization struck a note that this house should seriously consider, that is if we are to have regulation, and apparently there must be some regulation.
My hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party, who have opposed price control by publicly appointed bodies or bodies appointed by this parliament, have been urging that manufacturers' private interests should be allowed to exercise a very large measure of control over retail prices; that is not good. But I do think that the public has some right to have some control over price levels in the interests of the consumer and of the individual who handles goods on the way to the consumer. As I stated^ I believe that on Monday I said all that I need to say regarding this matter. It has been so well debated and at such length in this house that I feel it would be repetitious to say anything more than I have said. I am going to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill No. 36 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation providing that where regulation of resale prices is in the public interest such regulation should be under public control instead of under private control.
If this amendment should be approved by the house, we shall be delighted. If, on the other hand, it is not approved by the house at this stage, I hope the government will give some attention to these matters during the recess and ask the combines commissioner to consider the matter and make some recommendations, so that we may round out the bill now before us in such a manner that it will be satisfactory to the consumer and at the same time give those retailers in the smaller places more protection than they otherwise would have.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to say just a word about the position of the government with respect to this amendment. The adoption of this amendment would, of course, mean that there would be no legislation at this session. In spite of the hope expressed by the hon. member that it would be accepted, I think that he will be content with the second hope that consideration between now and the next session will be given to other problems that may arise in connection with the regulation of prices.
I might say that, on this second part of the report of the joint committee on combines legislation, the part that deals with the danger

of the loss leader being resorted to, the position of the government is that we recognize that there are in this house on both sides members who honestly fear that the consequence of prohibiting resale price maintenance will, in the words of the committee,
... be to enable large and powerful retailing interests to engage in a policy of selling goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying the independent retailer.
The government agrees with the committee that under present conditions there does not seem to be any substantial likelihood of such policies being engaged in. We feel, moreover, that unless circumstances arise in the meantime which are not now foreseen, we should await the final report of the MacQuarrie committee before considering any legislation on the subject that the committee is now considering. The government is, however, quite prepared to co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the law enforcement officers, both of the federal government and of the provinces, in the vigorous enforcement of section 498A of the Criminal Code whenever it may appear that the practices forbidden by that section are being engaged in.
Moreover, the government wishes to give close and constant attention to the effects of the legislation now being considered by the house, if it is adopted, and to any practices which may develop either as a result of that legislation or independently of it which would be contrary to the public interest. In the event of any such development which cannot be dealt with under existing legislation, the government will give serious consideration to what other legislative action it may be appropriate to recommend to parliament.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I say one word in view of what the Prime Minister has said?


Mr. Speaker:: With the consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Major James William Coldwell: I carefully followed what the Prime Minister has said. He has not, of course, dealt with the point I have made in the amendment with regard to a public board to do some regulation in connection with prices, but I would say this. If the government is giving consideration to these matters, while I think hon. members should express their views on this amendment I would be prepared to say that, after they have done so, I would not divide the house on this question at this time since I realize the validity of the point made by the Prime Minister, namely that it would be difficult to introduce legislation at this session.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, without its being regarded as a speech on this amendment, may
Combines Investigation Act I ask a question? I am not clear as to the meaning of this amendment. It speaks of "regulation of resale prices" and it says:
. . . where regulation of resale prices is in the public interest such regulation should be under public control instead of under private control.
The hon. member has not explained in a manner that I can understand just what is meant by that phraseology. I am asking the question as related to the general practice that has grown up in the United States on fair trade practices, with boards administering them; and I am interested to know whether he has in mind that sort of thing or some other system of price control.


Major James William Coldwell: I would say this, Mr. Speaker. Where it is desirable in the public interest to regulate resale prices, it should be done by representations to a public board set up under the authority of parliament.


George Alexander Drew: May I extend the question? What I am trying to clarify is this. I should like to know whether the hon. member is proposing a board similar to the fair trade boards in the United States, where a general program of prices is approved, but where the actual fixing of prices is not done by the board, or is he actually suggesting that this board should fix prices?


Major James William Coldwell: I am suggesting that this board should hear representations and then make decisions as to what fair prices will be.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, for a week I have had in readiness a forty-minute speech in support of this amendment, waiting for an opportunity to speak to it. I do not know whether I can reduce that speech and give it in less than forty minutes, much as I desire to facilitate the business of the house.


An hon. Member:: Try.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I shall try hard.
When I was speaking on the resolution which preceded this bill, on November 6, I took occasion to say that in my opinion this legislation was being introduced for political purposes chiefly; that when parliament assembled early in the fall there was a great public demand for some control over inflation and that that demand was taking the specific form of a demand for price control; and that the government, unwilling to introduce price control, offered this as a sop to the public to allay their demand, or to take the heat off, as it were, the demand for price control.
I am still convinced that this is the main purpose the government had and still has in mind in getting this bill through parliament this session. During this debate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) called

The Royal Assent
attention to the fact that January is a month of sales in the stores of Canada. There is no question that, during the coming month of January, we shall see more of those sales than usual. As a result of the government's fiscal policy, as a result of having drained off unnecessary taxation from the people, as a result of their credit restrictions, as a result of the unemployment and part employment that has developed, stores across this country find their shelves loaded with goods that they have been unable to sell. There is no doubt that those shelves will be unloaded following the Christmas business, and I suspect that the government hopes to glean some measure of credit for this bill when those sales take place. The Minister of Justice can say to the Canadian public: Look, I told you so. We passed the price maintenance legislation at the end of the year and already prices are reduced throughout the country-prices, I may say, that would have been reduced in all probability, entirely regardless of what happened to this bill.
To give credit to the MacQuarrie committee, they did not suggest that this proposed legislation would have any effect upon the cost of living. They say on page 21 of their report:
The committee has studied resale price maintenance in the light of the two standards of judgment originally set up, namely, the desirability of a free economy and the need for economic efficiency.
The MacQuarrie committee, in their recommendation that price maintenance should be made illegal, were not thinking particularly of the cost of living, were not thinking particularly of the small retailer or merchant. It is the government that is thinking of them from a political standpoint. They were concerned only with preserving our free economy; and in the words of the report:
This study has led the committee to the general conclusion that resale price maintenance, on the growing scale now practised, is not justified by either of these standards. It represents a real and undesirable restriction on competition by private agreement or "law" and its general tendency is to discourage economic efficiency.
It becomes quite clear from the report that the MacQuarrie committee was concerned with the preservation of a free economy. I have no doubt that the government is also interested in the preservation of a free economy, and of course the official opposition is likewise interested in the preservation of a free economy.
What is true of course is that this bill is a culmination of a controversy that has developed among the supporters of the free economy system. On the one hand we have the Liberals and the T. Eaton Company of Canada supporting what they call free and open competition. I presume it is the kind of competition that Adam Smith recommended.
(Mr. Noseworthy.]
It may well be that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has not studied much economics since he took some lectures on Adam Smith during his university days. I suggest that if he supplements what he learned about laissez-faire economy during his university days with something a little more up to date he will know that free competition within our free enterprise system as he visualizes it does not and cannot exist under present-day conditions.
The Conservatives, supported by the mass of the independent retailers throughout the country and by other groups, believe that we should have regulated and controlled competition within our free economic system. I use the phraseology "regulated and controlled competition" because that is the phrase which the pharmaceutical association, in their brief to the joint committee, used in connection with the practice of price maintenance. The financial expert of the official opposition, the hoe. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell), made it quite clear to us in his speech that he did not believe in free and open competition. Evidently they believe that under conditions existing today there must be some regulation and some control.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to implement the international convention for the regulation of whaling.
An act to implement the agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces, signed on the nineteenth day of June, 1951.
An act respecting the surveys of public lands of Canada.
An act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.
An act to approve the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, signed on the twenty-ninth day of June, 1951.
An act to amend the Judges Act, 1946.
An act to provide for old age security.
An act to amend the Pension Act.
An Act to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933.
An act to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
An act to amend the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1943, and the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1944.
An act to amend the Supreme Court Act.
An act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An act to amend an act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada.

An act to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act.
An act respecting the Canadian forces.
An act respecting the general synod of the Church of England in Canada.
An act respecting the general synod of the Church of England in Canada and the missionary society of the Church of England in Canada.
An act to incorporate the Evangelical Mennonite Brethren of Canada.
An act to incorporate the Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence.
An act respecting the Toronto harbour commissioners.
An act to amend the Railway Act.
An act respecting construction of works for the generation of electrical power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river.
An act to establish the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
An act to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act.
An act to provide for the financial administration of the government of Canada, the audit of the public accounts and the financial control of crown corporations.
An act to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and to change its title to the Canada Elections Act.
An act respecting the National Gallery of Canada.
An act to amend the Civil Service Act.
An act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to complete harvesting operations or to make delivery of grain.
An act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain commitments for new equipment incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1951, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An act to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
An act to provide for the establishment of an agricultural products board.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at two o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson for the second reading of Bill No. 36, to amend the Combines Investigation Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Cold-well.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, when we were called to the other place I was about to show that the bill before us is the culmination of a controversy that exists within the free enterprise system as to how much competition should be permitted within that system. I pointed out that the Liberals on the one hand support free and open competition as provided for in the bill, but the Conservatives favour regulated and controlled competition, that the Liberals are supported by the mass buyers and distributors
Combines Investigation Act of merchandise while the Conservatives are supported by the manufacturers and, I would say, by the independent retailers throughout the country. I think we can draw from that the conclusion that today there is just no place in the merchandising of goods for free and open competition such as the government visualizes. The view is expressed by the pharmaceutical association in their brief when they call attention on page 42 to the factors which in modern times have entered our free economy. They say:
Adam Smith's economics knew nothing of the baffling problems that our machines have created. The early pioneer had only a few rather simple problems to solve; but today's interdependence of men, of classes of men-pounding engines and whirling wheels-corporations, holding companies, and industrial empires have created problems that Adam Smith never dreamed of happening.
Granted then that there just is no place in our present system of merchandising goods for that free and open competition which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) visualizes in the bill, and accepting the fact that such competition as we have must be regulated and controlled, as admitted by business, by the pharmaceutical association and by those who put forward the Conservative point of view, the question arises as to who shall do that regulating and controlling. After all, the present system of price maintenance, a device which has been practised now for twenty-five years, a system that has been worked out by the manufacturers and retail merchants whereby the manufacturer is able to fix the retail price at which the goods he manufactures shall be sold in every store across the country, appears to be giving satisfaction to the manufacturers. They are quite satisfied with the system.
The retailer finds it much more convenient to have the manufacturer fix the price at which the article shall be sold than to have to go through the difficulty of figuring the individual mark-up on every article he places on his shelves. But there are others besides the manufacturers and the retailers to be considered. In this fight between the two groups of giants within the free enterprise system, the mass purchasers and distributors of goods such as the T. Eaton Company on the one hand and the manufacturers on the other, there are a few million consumers who should be given some consideration. If it is necessary in order to maintain the private enterprise system and prevent the growth of monopolies within the distributive branch of business, then in our opinion the authority to control and regulate price maintenance, or whatever degree of price maintenance is in the public interest, should be in the hands of an authority that is subject to parliament

Combines Investigation Act
We feel it is not fair to the consumer to leave the manufacturer with a free hand to fix the price of his goods to the retailer. The Conservatives of course will argue that it provides for competition and that that competition prevents the manufacturer from fixing his price too high. They would probably tell us that the consumer's interest is safeguarded under the present price maintenance system. If manufacturers as a class are to be given the right to fix the prices of their goods, and if that system is spreading and becoming more general with larger and larger sections of our economy being affected by the practice of price maintenance, I do not think any of us are naive enough to believe that the consumer's interest is going to be adequately protected under that system. It is for that reason we suggest, as did the trades and labour congress in their brief to the committee, that control should be exercised by means of a board subject to the authority of parliament.
As a matter of fact, in their brief the retail druggists of Ontario point out that in recent years prices of wheat, milk and the wages of employees have been regulated by law. We maintain that if it is necessary, as I believe it is, that prices should be maintained in certain spheres for the protection of the small storekeeper, that protection should be such as will afford protection to the consumer as well as to the manufacturer and to the retailer. There is nothing unfair in suggesting 'that. It is a procedure to which every trade union in the country is being subjected. It is a procedure by which the farmers of this country sell their wheat. It is the procedure by which milk prices are regulated in the larger communities. It is a procedure that can be fair to the manufacturer, that can be fair to the retailer and can take the interests of the consumer into account.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation before us is incomplete. It is unfortunate that the government should be introducing this legislation so late in the session. They now feel that to accept our amendment will mean that they will not be able to bring in any legislation regarding price maintenance this session. I would merely like to point out that I fail to understand what the government expects to gain or just how they expect to serve the public interest by rushing through legislation that is incomplete, and will probably have to be reconsidered as soon as its effects upon our economy are observed. I do not think we need any combines investigation, I do not think we need any stacks of statistics, to know that without some 

degree of protection firms such as the T. Eaton Company and the chain stores will eventually push the small businessman to the wall. I believe most of us in this house are old enough to have observed during our lifetime what happens under those circumstances. It is, therefore, in the interests of the retailer, in the interests of the manufacturers and consumers of this country, that we propose that this bill be reconsidered; that it be not now read a second time, but that consideration be given to means whereby these various sections of our economy may be protected.
I might point out that the interim report of the MacQuarrie committee recognized that it had not given complete study to this problem. There was the question of loss leaders for which, at that time, the committee had no remedy to offer. It is true they point out that under present conditions there is not much of that being done, and there may be ample time to devise some legislation that will protect the small dealers against loss leaders. The minister went to great lengths to try to assure the retail trade that they would not suffer by reason of this legislation. I prefer, Mr. Speaker, to accept the opinion of the retailers of this country as against the judgment of the minister. I take it that they know their business better even than does the learned Minister of Justice.
I take it that these retailers are not protesting purely on grounds of selfish interests. I refuse to accept the explanation that these retailers are being pressured into their protest by the larger manufacturers. I believe they have a real cause for protest; and, as the leader of this group says, we sympathize with them in the dilemma in which they find themselves with this legislation facing them. I would again urge the government to give consideration to the recommendation put before the committee by the trades and labour congress, that where protection is needed for the retailers it be given on exactly the same terms and in exactly the same way as trade unions and others are protected, by a board which is directly responsible to this parliament.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: The amendment which has been moved by the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) has not appeared in quite the form in which I had expected it. I am, therefore, led to guess as to its complete meaning. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member meant it to apply somewhat to fair trade laws which could be passed. With this in mind, I should like to compliment him upon evolving

an alternative to a bill which, in my estimation, would work definite harm upon the Canadian economy.
In the short time which is permitted for debate on this and other matters, it was not possible, when I spoke on the original amendment the other day, to go into the matter of fair trade. I have in my hand a booklet to which I referred the other day. At that time I was under the impression that every member of this house had received a copy. Since then I have found that they were not distributed generally. There is some pertinent information in it which I believe should be on the record.
Mr. Cold well:	Would the hon. member
identify the pamphlet so that we may obtain copies?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes. At the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar I should like to say that the title of the pamphlet is "One Hundred and Fifty Million Reasons for Fair Trade". Undoubtedly the one hundred and fifty million refers to the population of the United States. It is a booklet by W. W. Wachtel, President of Calvert Distillers Corporation. He deals with fair trade practices in a fairly general way, and the arguments which he puts out in this booklet are extremely interesting. On the very first page he has what he calls "Dedication", which reads as follows:
This booklet is dedicated to the 1,800,000 retailers in the United States in all lines of business, especially the 91 per cent of the smaller stores which do 70 per cent of the total business. They bolster'the free enterprise system which has brought to this country the highest living standards enjoyed by the people of any nation in the history of the world.
The elimination of the small retailer from our system of mass production and distribution can precipitate the end of free enterprise.
Without small business, the individual's right to go into business for himself would be lost. When that time comes . . . when everyone is consigned to a future of working for someone else, the average man may then decide that it would be better to have the government as the only boss. Most Americans fervently hope this never happens here.
If small merchants as a class were wiped out, the middle class in our economy would be on the way out. Then we will have a few big monopolies and 150 million proletarians. That was what Karl Marx predicted would happen to capitalism just before it collapsed.
About 300,000 retailers have been added to the national economy in the past twenty years since the first fair trade law was enacted, indicating that fair trade has promoted competition rather than monopoly and strengthened our merchant class upon which free enterprise depends. Moreover, fair trade is not price fixing and does not increase prices.
Every American who values highly the welfare of his country should support fair trade, because by preserving small business we may prevent transforming America into an alien and perilous two-class system.
I think there is a great deal of truth in that dedication and it can be applied to this
Combines Investigation Act country just as well as to the United States of America because we live in a similar economy. While, of course, our numbers are much less than theirs, nevertheless many of the same rules apply and are interchangeable.
In this booklet Mr. Wachtel goes on to deal with the various phases of fair trade and how they affect the various classes of people in a country such as his-and as ours too. In chapter 2 he has something to say about the producer and fair trade. I do not intend to read all of this chapter. I should just like to make a couple of comments. He picks up again a phrase which he used in the dedication and says "Fair trade is not price fixing." He quotes Governor Herbert H. Lehman as saying:
Fair trade is in no sense price fixing. It does not sanction monopoly, monopoly prices or combinations in restraint of free competition with commodities.
But he goes on to say that not all producers need fair trade laws, as not all have brand names to protect. A manufacturer who has control of the distribution of his product finds fair trade laws unnecessary. But then he goes on to show that the manufacturers who do not control the distribution to the ultimate retailer need the benefit of fair trade laws.
In his next paragraph or chapter he deals with the subject of how fair trade protects the consumer, and he elaborates on what he calls two broad ways that the consumer is protected, the first of which is by preventing the employment of predatory loss leadering which uses brand names to build up store traffic to increase the sale of non-fair trade goods. He elaborates that theme. Then his second way is as follows:
The consumer is also protected by fair trade against a loss in quality of brand names. Brand names represent the reputation and integrity of the producer who spends millions to advertise the product. The product achieves wide sale to become a standard brand only because it has been tested widely in the market place, proving that it is of top quality and good value in every respect. However, if price cutting continues on the brand, the producer (in self defence to prevent loss of markets) must eventually reduce the price to the dealer. To continue to sell at a lower price, the manufacturer is soon compelled to lower the quality of the product. The consumer can only get what he pays for.
It narrows down to what Herbert Hoover said: "Honest merchants do not cajole their customers that a dollar's worth of mechandise can be sold for 69 cents.''
He goes on to say:
Under fair trade, merchants may not use brand names as bait to get business. If quality is to be maintained, the consumer must pay a dollar for a dollar's worth of goods-
I said something the same in my remarks the other day on the first amendment. It was not until later that I read this article of Mr. Wachtel. I think it is significant that when you get into the discussion on resale
2332

Combines Investigation Act price maintenance and fair trade laws you just naturally follow certain channels of thought. I do not think they could be expressed more lucidly than this gentleman has expressed them in this extremely interesting booklet.
When you start to consider fair trade laws, you are confronted with the difficulty of making laws which can be enforced. I feel that it would be preferable if we were not faced with the necessity of making fair trade laws. We would not be faced with the necessity if it were not evident that the government intends to put through this legislation abolishing resale price maintenance. If that legislation goes through, we feel that we must heed the advice of one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee when he pleaded with the committee not to throw out the baby with the bath water. We must consider what is the next step if this legislation is to go through against all the protests of the people in this house and in the country. If the government is determined to put it through, what then must we do to protect our economy?
In the system which has been followed in this country, we have at the present time, in my opinion, the best basis for fair trading and the best protection against loss leadering. We are now faced with the possibility that that system is going to be declared illegal. Therefore, when it becomes illegal we must proceed to build up other laws to take the place of the natural process under which we have operated for some time.
I have been interested in the evidence given before the subcommittee on study of monopoly power of the committee on the judiciary of the House of Representatives in the United States. On page 20 of serial No. 1, part 5, evidence is given by Stephen J. Sping-arn, the federal trade commissioner. He was speaking on the difficulty experienced in registering convictions. He was speaking after a case had gone to the supreme court, I believe the case of the Standard Oil Company v. the Federal Trade Commission, in lanuary of this year. He said:
Now, the issue in that case was whether when the federal trade commission brings charges of unlawful price discrimination, and further makes a showing that those price discriminations have resulted or will probably result or may even certainly result or may in fact have already resulted in substantial injury, serious injury, to competition or even destruction of competition, that it is nevertheless a complete defence to those charges for the seller to make a showing that he was meeting competition in good faith.
That paragraph alone, Mr. Speaker, shows how a simple thing can be used as a defence to a very serious charge. There is some further discussion, all of which I do not


propose to read, but Mr. Spingarn finally says that prosecution can really be successful only after it has been proved that the monopoly has actually been created. Then he goes on to say:
You would be locking the barn after the horse was stolen.
That is precisely one of the things that we fear. We fear that by the time legislation is worked out for the protection of business people in this country the horse will already have been stolen; that they will have faced economic disaster, have been defeated, and you cannot build up what has once been torn down.
There has been quite a bit of comment about section 498A of the Criminal Code, and the fact that it provides the means whereby businessmen can be protected. The section which is most frequently quoted sets out that penalties may be levied against any person or corporation who-and this is the part that I should like to quote:
(a) is a party or privy to, or assists in, any transaction of sale which discriminates, to his knowledge, against competitors of the purchaser in that any discount, rebate or allowance is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate or allowance available at the time of such transaction to the aforesaid competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like quality and quantity;
I believe this section has been in the act since 1927. I think I am correct in saying that never has any charge been laid under it. If the enforcement of that section could protect those who have suffered by reason of discriminatory practices, then why has it not been enforced before now? Cases have been brought before the courts under which certain corporations have been convicted and have been dealt with under the Combines Investigation Act, but at no time has any charge ever been laid under this section, I do not wish to express an opinion myself, because I am not a lawyer, I am not learned in the ways of the courts; but I know that among business people there has been comment to the effect that some of these investigations might well have produced circumstances in which charges could have been laid under this section.
It has become increasingly apparent that it is impossible to write laws which can be enforced against loss leaders. The most effective means heretofore, as I said before, has been the practice which is now followed, namely, the establishment of a reasonable resale price which protects the consumer and the merchant alike. If we wipe that out and we proceed to introduce, let us say, something in the nature of fair trade laws, we will go right back to the old system which

was in vogue and which has since been discarded by the tobacco companies for one, and by Gillette's for another, under which the manufacturer merely made a contract with his end dealer by which that dealer became his distributor. It seems to me that we are going backward instead of forward if we wipe out the practice which makes that almost mandatory, if we are to protect the economy of the country.


Major James William Coldwell: How does the consumer benefit under this system?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: A consumer, as I pointed out the other day, Mr. Speaker, and as I said a few moments ago, benefits because of the fact that when you establish a reasonable retail price the quality of the article which he purchases is assured and protected. I did not read the whole of Mr. Wachtel's article on the consumer and fair trade. I would suggest that hon. members secure that booklet and read it. I feel that the big difficulty in this whole discussion, and in all of the investigations in committee and in this House of Commons, has been that we have proceeded with such speed that we have not had an opportunity adequately to consider the effect of the steps which we are taking.
There is one part of the amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) with which I am in wholehearted agreement. That is the part in which he says that the bill be not now read a second time. I am in agreement with his whole resolution if what he means by it is the establishment of fair trade practice laws which will protect the distributors and the consumers of this country.
In August, 1951, the chairman of the federal trade commission, James M. Mead, issued a statement following a conference among officials of his commission. They were concerned over the effect on the small retailers of the price wars that had developed in New York and other cities after the supreme court's decision invalidating in' interstate commerce the non-signer provisions of state fair trade laws. In part he said:
While the FTC is "keenly aware of the importance of low prices to consumers,'' one of the "prime objectives of our competitive system" Mr. Mead said, it is also "keenly aware of the fact that if price discrimination and predatory price-cutting result in the destruction of the small independent businessmen who constitute the backbone of that competitive system, then the consumer will suffer a long-term loss far overshadowing his apparent immediate gain. The effects of such a tragedy would quickly shatter the illusion that the consumer benefits from pricing practices which are in effect unfair."
Mr. Mead also said that the commission is presently investigating whether or not certain large
Combines Investigation Act concerns are inducing and receiving "unlawfully discriminatory prices" in the form of discounts, advertising allowances, or other concessions.
As I said a moment ago, we have provision for just such investigation in our own Criminal Code. There is presently under consideration by our neighbour to the south what has been described as a 22-point program on fair trade. I have found it impossible to secure a copy of this program, because I believe it is still in the committee stage there. Quite frankly I do not know whether it is being handled by the federal trade commission or by the department of commerce. I ran into a blank wall when I tried to get a copy of the program. But the very fact that such a program is under consideration at the present time is evident proof that all is not rosy in the field of price maintenance.
The evolution of fair-trade laws in the United States was described in the evidence submitted to the committee in the brief of the retail hardware association. I think it is pertinent to this discussion, and I would like to read a small portion of it because it shows how we progress from one step to another. If we take this step, which was taken in the United States over fifty years ago, we can see what may happen to us in the field of supplementary legislation required to protect the economy.
This brief reads in part as follows:
It is to be noted that resale price maintenance is an entirely lawful marketing practice under the common law. Only in the United States of America was the practice found to be illegal and there only by virtue of the unique provisions of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, under the provisions of which the courts held that neither a patent nor a copyright nor a trade-mark gave a product a proprietory right which the manufacturer could enjoy when his manufactured product had reached the hands of a retailer. An epidemic of "cutthroat" competition in that growing country at the turn of the century produced a demand throughout the entire United States for legislative action to permit resale price maintenance on a vertical basis where branded or trade-marked merchandise was involved as the economists and subsequently the legislators of that country soon found that a highly reputable brand of merchandise, developed often at great expense and with great expenditure of technical skill and scientific experiments, a brand of merchandise which had great consumer acceptance and which was being marketed at a price highly desirable from the viewpoint of the consumer, could be destroyed in a comparatively short period of time by ruthless deep-cutting of prices by certain large scale retail organizations, notably chain and department stores. This price cutting, it was found, developed, first of all, a state of complete chaos in the market for the products, and, at the secondary stage, a point where the consumer's faith in the product has been shattered and in the result, the product disappeared from the market, in many cases, to the great loss of the consuming public. The instance of that well-known product, the Ingersoll watch, was in fact largely instrumental in the aroused demand for fair trade legislation in the United

Combines Investigation Act States. Since that time legislation in forty-five of the United States and in inter-state trade has provided a legal framework for resale price maintenance and has, in effect, restored the ancient common law position under which resale price maintenance was a lawful, economically sound, marketing practice.
There we have it. We are proceeding to destroy what has been acceptable practice under common law. So that we face a period of time in which it will become increasingly evident that to replace that practice we must evolve a complicated framework of legal structure which will permit the very thing which we abolished.
It seems to me this is a very foolish procedure. I cannot let that belief stand in the way of the practical knowledge that quite apparently the house intends 'to proceed with this legislation abolishing resale price maintenance. I must admit I am a little concerned over the phraseology of the amendment now before us, because to my mind it creates some ambiguity. I do not believe it is absolutely clear that what is intended is the establishment of a provision whereby legislation may be studied which will introduce what is commonly known in this country and in the United States as fair trade laws.
Because I wish to be absolutely sure about what we are voting on, and because I do not wish to lay myself open to supporting something which may turn out entirely different from what I had thought; it meant, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton):
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word "providing" and substituting the following: "for the establishment of a fair trade commission."


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested to hear what the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) had to say on this matter a few moments ago. It was very refreshing indeed to hear his viewpoint, because it was so diametrically opposed to that expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) in the committee on resale price maintenance, on which I had the honour to serve. The hon. member for Vancouver East was one of the two C.C.F. representatives on the committee, and expressed himself as being quite satisfied with the legislation. His only desire was to have it put through immediately, without any change whatsoever.
It would seem now, as evidenced by the opinions expressed by the hon. member for York South, that the C.C.F. party is perhaps realizing that this legislation is a great threat to the business life of the small retailer. I hope his views are now those generally accepted by the C.C.F.
[Mrs. Fairclough.l

The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) has just said that we should give careful consideration to the fair trade laws which are now the accepted practice in the United States. With that I agree. It is most important that we examine carefully the experience of the United States. I am going to go over some of the ground which I went over a few nights ago, and express some further opinions on the United States fair trade laws. I shall say something about the experience of that country in the past fifty years.
In 1900 the United States made resale price maintenance illegal. During the next thirty years, both consumers and retailers found that the condition which this abolition of resale price maintenance created was most unsatisfactory, and 1931 saw the appearance of the first fair trade law in California. This law proved to be so satisfactory to both consumers and retailers that -today, in 45 of the 48 states, the abolition of resale price maintenance has been replaced by fair trade laws.
It is obvious from this that the fair trade laws of the United States are just as satisfactory to consumers as they are to retailers, because there are more consumers than there are retailers, and the consumers elect governments. If these fair trade laws had not proved to be more satisfactory to the consumers of the United States than the abolition of price maintenance, these 45 state governments would have been thrown out, and the fair trade laws would have been thrown out with them.
The fact that the number of state governments which have introduced fair trade laws has increased from one to forty-five in the past twenty years I believe demonstrates clearly that the overwhelming majority of the people in the United States are satisfied with the deal they get under fair trade laws. It demonstrates also, I submit, that both consumers and retailers feel that they get a better deal under these fair trade laws than they got during the period when resale price maintenance was abolished.
I do not claim for one moment that just because laws are satisfactory to the people of the United States they are necessarily the best for this country. But I do think it is important for us to remember that their economy and buying habits are very similar to ours. Therefore, I think we should examine most carefully their experience during the past half century, before embarking on any new legislation of our own. We are planning to take a step which they took fifty years ago, and which has proved to be unsatisfactory; so much so, in fact, that that step

has been almost unanimously revoked by the people of the United States.
If we are to follow the course which the government now plans to follow in abolishing resale price maintenance, we are going to turn the clock back fifty years. I believe that the committee which was set up to study resale price maintenance should be reconvened, and should give a thorough study to the fair trade laws of the United States to see if they could not be adapted to conditions here in Canada.
Having sat on the committee for approximately one month, it is my firm conviction that the legislation which the government now proposes is both hasty and ill-considered. I do not think any serious consideration was given to the views of those who opposed the abolition of price maintenance. I think it was obvious from the start that those who appeared before the committee opposing this present legislation were there only on sufferance. It was just eyewash that they were even permitted to attend, and it was obvious that whatever they had to say was not going to be taken seriously.
If we do not give this matter thorough investigation, we are going to get legislation which 150 million people in the United States have tried and discarded during a fifty-year trial period. Can we afford to ignore a lesson which has been learned by the most industrialized niaition in the world today? I think the answer is an obvious and emphatic "no." Before embarking on this legislation, which I believe would be disastrous to the small shopkeeper, and which would not make any appreciable difference in the cost of living, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has stated, we should give a thorough study to the United States fair trade laws which I believe are the answer to the problem facing us today.
They give the consumer and the retailer a better deal than they got under the abolition of resale price maintenance, and this has been proved by 150 million people in the United States. I would remind hon. members that the people of the United States are the same kind of people as we are. There is no appreciable difference between us; we like the same things; we buy the same things; we trade in the same way; we make our living in the same way; we enjoy ourselves in the same way.
If this government is going to refuse to give this matter a thorough study, it will simply be admitting that the legislation it is introducing is brought in for the political purpose of deluding the people of this country into thinking that the government is doing something to bring down the cost of living. It
Combines Investigation Act will be doing something to take the people's minds off the steadily rising cost of living, about which the government has done nothing to date. I think that that kind of motive will not make the people of this country think very highly of what we do in this parliament.
I recommend to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that before proceeding with this legislation, he reconvene the committee so that a thorough study can be made of the practices and the experience of the United States in connection with this matter during a period of fifty years. After that is done the government can decide what action, if any, is justified in this matter.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, since a subamendment has been moved perhaps if I should say a word at this stage it might shorten the discussion. I want to say immediately that what we were suggesting was not a fair trade law such as is in effect in several states of the union, but the setting up of a public board somewhat similar to the tariff board to which anyone could apply, retailer, manufacturer or consumer, to have his interest considered in public and if necessary protected. As the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) has indicated, the fair trade law in the United States is really governed by agreements between manufacturers and retailers. The consumer's interest does not appear and is in no way protected other than in the manner in which she has indicated.
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the United States with their fair trade laws. I think it was Senator Tydings of Maryland who introduced a bill in the United States Senate to make this a federal matter. Sometime before he died, President Roosevelt denounced it in no uncertain terms, stating that it had operated against the consumer's interest and entirely in favour of the manufacturer.
There is one thing I want to say with regard to what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) said a few minutes ago. He complimented the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) and said that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) had pressed for this legislation in the committee. I expect that is so. May I say that what I have moved is entirely in line with what my friend, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), suggested, and I may say that before he left he saw the amendment, knew what we were doing, and approved of it. My hon. friend said that we have changed our position. I would point out to him that on November 6, the day on which

Combines Investigation Act I spoke in connection with the reference of this matter to the committee, I made our position very clear. I spoke for our entire group when I made the statement that is to be found at page 782 of Hansard. After discussing the effect of resale price maintenance and the reference to the MacQuarrie committee I said:
When we do legislate against resale price maintenance I believe the law should be strengthened in another particular, too. For I am equally afraid of the monopolies in the distributive field that are growing up in our country which may take advantage of what is called the "loss leader." That is also an unfair trade practice that should be dealt with according to the law equally with an unfair trade practice in relation to retail price maintenance mainly for the benefit perhaps of the manufacturer.
A little later I said:
I think that is as much an offence on the one hand as resale price maintenance is on the other. If this goes to a committee-
We were then discussing reference to the committee.
-and the legislation is enlarged in any respect, consideration should be given to that particular phase of retail merchandising, because I think none of us wants to play into the hands of powerful distributive monopolies in this country.
I said that on November 6. The position I have taken today is entirely in conformity with the position we took then, and indeed the reason we take the position we are taking today is that we took that position on November 6. We believe the evidence before the committee has confirmed that we were right in that particular. On the other hand, if our suggested amendment is not approved by the house I think it would be a mistake to refuse to accept the bill as it now stands because I think all agree that resale price maintenance as it operates at the present time is in effect a private system of price control operated by manufacturers and those not under control of the public in any respect, and consequently is against the public interest and should therefore be discontinued now. That is why we support the bill. We think it is defective in the particulars I have named, but I wanted to rise immediately to put my hon. friends right. We are not advocating the enactment of a fair trade law such as they have, I believe, in forty-five states of the United States. And we are not changing our position. It is the position that we took on November 6.


George Harris Hees: In order to explain my own
position, Mr. Speaker, I was not claiming that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had changed his attitude. I was saying how nice it was to hear the change in the presentation made by the hon*. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) this afternoon. We heard the hon.


member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) speak a number of time in the committee on which I sat, and there has been quite a change, as anyone who was a member of the committee will tell you. I did not imply that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had made any change. I wonder-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member -has already spoken in this debate.


George Harris Hees: -if the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar would permit a question-?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Put your question.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said that in his opinion the people of the United States considered these fair trade laws were unsatisfactory. How then can he explain the fact that the number of state governments that have put them into effect has increased from one to forty-five over a twenty-year period? He must realize there -are far more consumers than retailers, and I should like to know in what way these fair trade laws are unsatisfactory to the consumers of the United States.


Major James William Coldwell: I cannot explain why forty-five states have them in effect, but I do know that the forty-five states enacted them one after another with great rapidity some years ago. I also know that President Roosevelt stated that this was one of the factors operating against the consuming interests of the country. Knowing something about the manner in which United States legislatures operate-well, I will refrain from expressing an opinion but we are not lobbied to the same extent.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one suggestion with regard to this question of fair trade practices. I think the legislation has boiled down to this, that the one great fear of the small retailer is that the loss leader device will be used by his large volume competitors in order to depress the prices of certain goods and to draw trade away from the small retail outlet. I -think that has been the main objection. Certainly it is the -thing in my mind which worries me most about the government's legislation. It is the one thing I think we have to fear, and from all indications it appears to be the one thing that really worries the small retailer. It worries not only those in the drug line but also people dealing with a great many other lines of commodities which are sold to small retail and specialty shops.
It would seem to me that if some device could be evolved whereby the loss leader

could be either curbed or prevented, a great deal of the genuine fear in the minds of the people who are protesting the legislation would be removed. The fair trade board or fair trade device with which our amendment deals goes a long way toward assuaging the fear of the little man because it would, by regulation, agreement or various other devices, establish a price which would be a fair one to the consumer, and which would allow both the retailer and the wholesaler a reasonable profit. We must remember that the retailer and the wholesaler must have a profit. If that is done, then you not only have a fair price for the consumer but you have reasonable security for a tremendous segment of the Canadian population. I feel that in all fairness we cannot jeopardize the security of this very large segment of the Canadian economy. If a fair trade regulation were established it would, in my opinion, go a long way toward overcoming this fear. I am not going into the Miller-Tydings act, and the proposals in the United States congress. Neither am I going to discuss the Schwergman case or the other case which is known as the Wentling case, which were the two cases recently decided, one by the Supreme Court of the United States and the other by the federal court in Philadelphia under the fair trade practice laws. I merely want to say that there is to be another bill presented to the congress on fair trade practices, which has as its aim the making of fair trade a national and federal matter. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that despite what we may think of what goes on in the United States, nevertheless that country is governed by the law of the majority. The fact that these fair trade practices have received such an overwhelming endorsa-tion by the various legislatures of that country is, I believe, something to which we must give serious consideration.
There is one more thing I want to say about this matter of prices, and that is that unless a manufacturer can get a large volume for his product he cannot profitably continue to manufacture. Therefore, it is obviously the first law of economics that a manufacturer must endeavour to get as high a volume for his products as he possibly can. He must price his goods so that they are acceptable to the large majority of his people. In other words, he must put them in a price range which enables him to secure volume. If he wants to stay in business he does not make his price to the consumer an artificially high price. He cannot do that, because he would go bankrupt. The questions of volume and price are interdependent, and as the price goes down the volume goes up in almost inverse ratio.
Combines Investigation Act There are different graphs and different patterns for different trades, but as a general principle it has been the reduction of price which has made the goods manufactured in America-I include Canada in that-so acceptable throughout the world. This low manufactured price has been a drawing card which has obtained universal acceptance for goods manufactured on this continent. Nowhere do you find such universal acceptance of the goods of any one continent as you do the goods from North America. The basis of that acceptance is the economic rule to which I have just referred. Goods which are individually and exquisitely made in Europe are sold in a limited market because they are unable to overcome the challenge of the volume price relationship.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, a code which I propose to read because I think it is of interest to the house in this debate. It is the code of the national retail dry goods association of the United States and contains eight clauses. I am quoting from a publication issued by the fair trade association of the United States. It says:
Eight principles have been recommended for "effective manufacturer-retailer fair trade arrangements" by the vendor relations committee of the National Retail Dry Goods Association. While noting that NRDGA has taken no official position on fair trade, Irwin D. Wolf, committee chairman and vice-president of Kaufmann Department Stores in Pittsburgh, said the principles were designed to do the following: "make an important contribution toward effectuating the purpose and intent of the several fair trade state acts and the Miller-Tydings amendment to the federal anti-trust act."
Cautioning that any action under fair trade agreements must be individual and independent, the NRGDA group proposes that:
1.	A vendor should provide a fair and equitable mark-up for retailers and continue historic discounts and other allowances;
2.	Retailers should be required by a vendor to agree in writing not to resell fair-traded goods at less than the stipulated fair trade price. Wholesalers should be required by a vendor not to resell to retailers unless the latter agree in writing to maintain fair trade prices.
3.	Vendors should guarantee to take all necessary action to protect all retailers signing fair trade agreements from price cutting or other predatory practices on the goods covered in the agreement. If the vendor fails to take such action at once, after written notice from the retailer, the latter may cancel the agreement.
4.	Any fair trade agreement required of one retailer should be required in identical form from all competing retailers and any benefits should be equally extended to all dealers.
5.	All fair trade agreements should provide for termination on notice by either party to the agreement. A vendor should have a 10-day option on buying back a retailer's inventory if the latter wishes to cancel. After 10 days, a cancelling retailer's obligations would be automatically void with respect to the fair trade agreement.
6.	On fair-traded seasonable goods, retailers should be permitted, by agreement, to clear stock for a specific period at season's end, provided that

Combines Investigation Act trade marks or other brand identifications are removed. A vendor should also have the option of repurchasing such goods.
7.	In any fair trade agreement, a vendor should have the right to adjust prices at any time, on a minimum of 10 days' notice. If this requires repackaging or other changes in the retailer's inventory, the vendor should supply the materials without cost at 10 days before the effective date of the price change.
8.	Where a retailer has a regular policy of employee discounts, they should be permitted on bona fide employee sales.
I merely mention that report to indicate the sort of agreement which is being considered now in the United States. I do not say that, in all its proposals, that is desirable; but it gives an idea of the general basis for fair trade practices. I have said before, Mr. Speaker, that with this safeguard of fair trade regulation the fears, as the brief says, of predatory raids by large retailer outfits are practically overcome.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay these suggestions before the house because I recognize the desire to have a fair price to the consumer. Actually, without a fair price to the consumer nothing would be sold. As I said, the whole basis upon which our prosperity has been built has been the build-up of the price-volume-cycle of growth or the price-volume-equation of goods. If we are not to be allowed to have some safeguard against the loss leader, I believe we should not jeopardize the retailer by abolishing what, to him, is his one great safeguard for orderly, reasoned and competitive marketing.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of this amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) and which I have had the honour of seconding. We have reached the stage where I think it has become perfectly obvious that the government intends to put this legislation through the house. I am not going to go any further than that. I believe that is a fair statement, namely that it is obvious that the government is determined that this legislation is to pass, sooner or later.


Alphonse Fournier: You never doubted that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is right that I may never have doubted it. I never doubted that they had the intention to pass it; but at one stage I hoped that they were open to conviction, that they had an open mind on the matter, and that it would be possible to convince them by the reasonable and solid arguments which were brought forward in


support of the proposition that the legislation should not pass in its present form.


Alphonse Fournier: You have not spoken long enough.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it has become obvious that they do not agree that the legislation should not be passed and that they are insisting on putting it through in its present form. If they will not adopt our suggestion that the legislation should not be proceeded with at the present time while further consideration is given to the actual form and effect of the bill before us, I feel that we are justified in urging that they should give consideration to the enactment of concurrent legislation which will protect the retailer against the danger which is bound to arise and to which he is bound to be exposed if the legislation goes through in its present form.
I was therefore greatly interested in the amendment proposed by the leader of the C.C.F. party this morning. As a matter of fact, I have been awaiting that amendment with interest ever since he announced that he intended to present it; because one of the things that we ourselves urged in the committee, and again in the house here, was that consideration should be given to the desirability of passing some form of fair trade practice legislation, and that time should be allowed for such consideration. When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) announced on Tuesday his intention to introduce an amendment, from what he then said I thought he had in mind the urging of consideration of some form of legislation similar to the fair trade laws of the United States. But from the form of his amendment and from the statement which he himself made after he had actually presented it today, it becomes apparent that the type of legislation which he is advocating is not legislation similar to the fair trade laws of the United States.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member has read what I said in the debate of November 6.
The words I used in the suggested amendment and the words I used today in the amendment are the same.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. If the hon. member has taken from what I have just said any indication that I am saying he has reversed his position, I apologize. That was not my intention.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am simply saying that, based on what he said on Tuesday, I had thought that his amendment might suggest something similar to the fair trade laws in the United States; but it does not.
We were interested in this amendment moved by the C.C.F. party particularly for two reasons; and I am saying this admitting the full force and effect of what the hon. member has said, namely that if his amendment is defeated he still proposes to vote for the bill. Nevertheless it is obvious from reading his amendment, and I think it is obvious from what he has said himself, that he believes the bill should not be proceeded with until this concurrent legislation can be considered. But he has said that if the government rejects this suggestion of his, then he will support the bill. Therefore I think it is fair to say that the C.C.F. party agrees with us that the legislation should not be put through without an opportunity for further consideration; and particularly, from their point of view, without an opportunity of studying and considering the type of legislation that he and his party have in mind. And of course from our point of view we would like to study and consider the type of legislation which we have in mind as one answer to this problem. Therefore we both agree on the desirability of delay and further study and consideration of some alternative answer to the problem which has been considered.
Their amendment is, I believe, significant secondly because it indicates that the C.C.F. party also feel that the retailer is entitled to some form of protection, in that there is 'grave danger that he may be seriously prejudiced-I would go so far as to say irreparably damaged-by the legislation now before the house, if it is passed in its present form without any concurrent legislation. Therefore I believe I am right in saying that to the extent of the two points I have just mentioned, the C.C.F. party and ourselves are in agreement. But as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) has said, we cannot ourselves subscribe to a proposal which would involve the proposition of a system of price control, or of government control of retail or resale prices. It was because we saw in the amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar the very definite indication that this interpretation would be correct that we felt we should make our own position clear by moving a further amendment to the amendment offered by the C.C.F. party. Our amendment preserves that portion of the C.C.F. amendment which says the bill should not now be proceeded with. I should like to make our amendment clear by reading what would be the whole motion if the original amendment of the C.C.F. party
Combines Investigation Act were amended as we have suggested. If our amendment were adopted the amendment would then read as follows:
That Bill No. 36 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation providing for the establishment of a fair trade commission.
If the proposition is as I stated earlier, that the C.C.F. party is in agreement with us firstly that this legislation should not be put through without further consideration and', secondly, that the retailer is entitled to some protection, I am hopeful they will find it possible to support our 'amendment.
I should like to refer to some figures which were placed on the record this morning by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar as to the course and progress of this debate. He referred to the number of speakers in the debate and the length of time occupied. Well, I made my own calculation of this matter and I think, as a matter of fact, I make it slightly higher than he did. He said there were 26 speakers on the motion for the setting up of the committee. My calculation makes it 27, but I am not going to quarrel with him over one more or less. He said there were 29 speakers so far in this debate on the proposed legislation itself on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I make it 30; but again I am not going to quarrel with him over one more or less.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There have been two or three since.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am referring to the speakers up to the time the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke. I would like to point out that actually the debate we should consider first is the debate now taking place on the bill, because although we did discuss the proposal to refer the MacQuarrie committee's report to the committee, we did not know what the legislation would be, did not know the form of it. I do not think it is quite fair to say there have been 30 plus 27 speakers taking part in this debate. I think it is more correct to say that there have been only 30 speakers taking part in this debate up until today. But even taking the two figures I should like to point out to you, sir, that during this session we debated the speech from the throne on 21 days. There were 187 speakers. During the course of the debate there were seven amendments and ten divisions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I do not see how that can have any relationship to the bill or to the subamendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with respect, may I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that in the course of his remarks this morning the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar

Combines Investigation Act referred to the length of this debate and the number of speakers who have taken part in it. I am not suggesting that the number of people who took part in the debate on the speech from the throne is relevant to this bill. I will be very brief. I am just dealing with what I thought was an inference of the hon. member, or the suggestion which emerges from the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, that this matter had been really pretty adequately debated already. The point of my remarks and of the comparison I have just completed was that in view of the length of time devoted to the speech from the throne and the number of speakers who took part and the number of amendments and divisions, there having been no suggestion at any time that that debate was unduly protracted or the subjects there discussed at too great length, I hardly think the suggestion, if such was contained in his remarks this morning, should properly apply to the debate on this measure, which in my view is the most important to come before the house in a very long time.
In the course of consideration of this bill and these amendments I think it is important for us to bear in mind the question of the interest of those affected. This morning the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned some of the organizations which submitted opinions opposed to the present practice of resale price maintenance, and therefore he said favouring this legislation. I point out that none of the briefs presented was favourable to the government legislation because none of them knew what the form of the legislation was going to be. I think it correct, however, to say that the briefs did indicate they were opposed to the present practice of resale price maintenance. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is also correct to say that every one of the briefs, even those opposed to the practice, did make it abundantly clear that in their view it was urgent that there should be some protection for the retail merchants against the dangers of loss leaders and unfair competition to which they would probably be exposed, if the price maintenance practice was eliminated.
I make one exception there which I think I should make, in the interests of accuracy, and that is the brief submitted by the Canadian Congress of Labour. In his evidence, as set out in that brief, Dr. Forsey said he did not regard the matter as one of urgency, because in his view and in the view of his congress the likelihood of harm resulting from the abolition of resale price maintenance was not very imminent. But I think that is the only exception to the statement I have made that the briefs submitted, even on the part of those opposed to the practice, made

it clear that they felt it was urgent and vital that if resale price maintenance was to be eliminated, then the retailer should be protected.
I should like particularly again to emphasize the brief submitted by the trades and labour congress, and also the evidence given by Mr. Bengough when he appeared before the committee. In answer to a question as to whether he thought if we outlaw price maintenance we should provide for protection against loss leadering Mr. Bengough said, as reported at page 372:
I think it would be vital it should be done.
I wish also to emphasize that the trades and labour congress in a most responsible brief, a brief which contained measured and well-considered language, indicated that although on the whole they felt that the system' of price maintenance as at present practised should not be continued, they made it abundantly clear that they felt it should not be eliminated carte blanche without any other protection to the merchant. They felt it should not be eliminated until some other form of protection for the retail trade had been fixed. As I say, while they say that on balance they are not in agreement with the system of price maintenance, they make no wholesale condemnation of it. They said, in effect: We recognize the necessity for it. We recognize the necessity for protection. We recognize the steps by which this practice has grown up. We recognize it has grown up simply as a protective device worked out by retail merchants themselves.
May I draw your attention particularly to that part of the brief of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, where, at page 382, they say:
Working people learned very early in the industrial period that, despite the law and the attitude of the state, it was necessary to combine to protect themselves, their families and their interest. Perhaps, from the employers' point of view, some combination is necessary for their protection regardless of the attitude of the state. While we may all agree that private arrangements such as resale price fixing which restrict a free economy and the competitive flow of prices and goods are undesirable, it may still be true that economic necessity, as that is experienced by the person, or organization directly involved, may dictate that some such arrangement is imperative. Under such conditions it would seem readily apparent, that failing provision of some social control facilities by the state, private groups and organizations within the economy will at all times act for their own protection and self-preservation.
Mr. Speaker, nothing I think could put the matter more clearly than those well-considered words of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. They recognize the fact that this system of price maintenance has grown up and has been designed by merchants and

retailers simply as a method of self-protection against unfair competitive practices and enormous power in the hands of giants in the distributive trade, against which they have found themselves individually powerless to protect their position, but against which they found an effective answer, and the only effective answer, in the practice of resale price maintenance.
That being the case, I submit it is a reversal of history, a turning back of the clock, a retrograde step to the laws of the jungle to take away the protection of resale price maintenance and throw open the doors -and do not let us be prisoners of words- not to free competition, in the assumption that this must always be a benevolent process, but to throw open the doors to cut-throat competition, to unfair trade practices-


Major James William Coldwell: That is capitalism.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do not talk nonsense. It is not capitalism, and you know that well-which we would be doing by eliminating resale price maintenance, without providing some alternative form of practice. May I point out that there is a vast difference between private enterprise and laissez-faire, unrestricted, unfair competitive practices.


Joseph William Noseworthy: What kind of enterprise is that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The whole course of our laws under the capitalist system over the last fifty or one hundred years has been, in this field, in the direction of eliminating unfair competitive practices. The whole purpose of combines legislation, which has been supported by all parties in the house, under the capitalist system is to prevent the abuse of power. We in this party are opposed to the abuse of power, whether it be by private individuals or by the state. We are always in support of those laws which will set limits to the abuse of power and make possible the exercise of freedom by the small man, while at the same time preventing the large man from finding it possible, in the pursuit of his livelihood under a so-called free competitive system, to crush the small man out of existence.
As I say, that has been the trend in our laws in this field for the last fifty or one hundred years. It has been the trend of the marketing laws, both federal and provincial, which we have devised. Those marketing laws are designed not only to provide for orderly marketing, in the literal sense of the term, but I think it must be admitted that they are designed to protect the weak against the strong. They recognize the fact that the individual farmer, with his limited economic power-that is, the small farmer-is unable 94699-149J
Combines Investigation Act to stand up against the large or unlimited economic power in the hands of other farmers as well as in the hands of industrial concerns.
Recognizing that the farmer cannot survive in all cases by himself, our marketing laws have been designed to enable the weak to survive against the strong, and also to prevent to some extent what might be described as natural forces from operating to the extinction of the individual.
I do not intend to pursue at greater length what might be described as the theoretical line of argument. I do believe, however, that it is important to recognize the fact that this has been the trend in our marketing laws and in our combines legislation. That has been its design and purpose. And in the light of those facts, to talk of this system of price maintenance as something that flies in the face of our competitive system, to hold it up as something designed to increase the power of some people in the state rather than something designed to protect the small man, is simply to beg common sense.
It is true that what we have done by legislation in the field of agricultural marketing, and what we have done by legislation in the field of labour unions, the retail merchants have done in their own field by their own system of resale price maintenance. But as the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) pointed out this morning, to eliminate resale price maintenance without substituting something else is to turn back the whole course of history and give rise to the very serious probability that we will also be opening the door to giving powerful commercial firms the protection the farmer now has, by inviting the powerful commercial packing firms to ask that the protection the farmer now has under our marketing legislation should be eliminated so that the farmer, too, may be exposed to the threat of powerful big interests in this country. That situation is, I submit, one which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and every responsible minister and member of this house must look upon with most serious misgivings. In my view, if nothing else were required that alone would justify us in pleading with this government not to push through this legislation before they have provided some alternative protection for the small man, before they have provided something to which he can turn so he will not be left at the mercy of powerful big interests in this country who are so solidly behind the present legislation.
When the Prime Minister spoke on this subject this morning he repeated the arguments which have been made before, namely that the answer to the arguments of those

Combines Investigation Act in both the C.C.F. party and the official opposition who say that you should not eliminate price maintenance without giving some other protection to the small merchant is to be found in section 498A of the Criminal Code. I am not at this stage going to repeat the references I made earlier to the opinions of highly qualified Liberal authorities with respect to the efficacy of section 498A. But I do want to emphasize that those authorities, a former minister of justice and Colonel Ralston, a prominent Liberal lawyer, stated in most categorical terms that the section would not provide the protection which it was hoped it would.
I want to emphasize the opinion of one who it must be admitted has had more practical experience in the field of anticombines legislation than anyone else. Mr. Fred McGregor said that it had not been possible in the course of all their struggles with the problem to devise effective legislative protection against loss-leadering practices. At no stage in the course of all his evidence before the committee, either in the reading of his brief or in the answers he made to searching and exhaustive questions which were directed to him as to the dangers of loss leaders, did Mr. McGregor say that section 498A was the answer. Nor did Mr. McGregor at any stage say that prosecutions had been instituted under section 498A, because in fact no prosecution has ever been brought under that section.
It seems to me that the experience as well as the opinion of these highly qualified observers and experts in this field indicate that section 498A is not going to be the answer tomorrow, any more than it was the answer yesterday; and that the only protection the retail merchant now has against the practice of loss leadering and against the power of the big monopoly interests is his own system which he has worked out of resale price maintenance.
We are prepared to recognize that there are questions of policy as well as questions having a practical effect which make it questionable whether it is desirable to leave the protection of resale price maintenance in the hands of private individuals. We sat in the committee and moved a resolution that consideration should be given to enacting legislation along the lines of the fair trade laws in the United States as one answer to this problem. We repeat that here.
We are not quite able to agree with the amendment put forward by the C.C.F. party because it looks to us a little too much like a system of government price control, but I think I would be correct in saying that we do

appreciate their thought that there must be some other form of protection for the merchant if this form of protection is removed.
Since this matter is now before the house we in no way modify our position that the legislation is being proceeded with with undue haste and after insufficient investigation. We in no way modify our statement that it is suspicious that the legislation should be pressed for and urged by the most powerful interests in the retail field in Canada and opposed by every one among the thousands of independent retail merchants. We do not modify either of those positions. We do say that if the legislation goes through in its present form without any other form of protection having been provided, the government will be playing into the hands of big business.
We again entreat the government to delay for a short while the enactment of this measure while they look into the possibilities of providing a form of public protection or protection through public laws which the merchant now finds exclusively under the private system of resale price maintenance. For that reason we ask that the legislation be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation providing for a fair trade commission.
If the government has at heart the interests of the small men, or I will put it this way: Unless they are prepared to say that every opinion expressed by independent merchants is not worthy of consideration or is not an accurate expression of the views which they put forth, then I say they cannot in good conscience reject those pleas and proceed with hardened minds and hearts down a road which will result in the enactment of the bill in its present form.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the motion now before the house as amended would give an opportunity to all hon. members to express their opinion as to whether time should be given for the consideration of this problem, without fixing any definite time limit, and also whether consideration should be given to the setting up of a fair trade commission. It will be recalled that when the leader of the C.C.F. party introduced his amendment this morning I asked certain questions which were intended to clarify the real intention of that amendment. It was not particularly clear in my mind even after he had answered as to what was intended. However, this afternoon he has cleared up what is the thought behind this basic amendment. He

has told us since the subaraendment was moved that he is not advocating a fair trade law and fair trade practices-


Major James William Coldwell: As in the United States.


George Alexander Drew: -as in the United States and as contemplated here in legislation actually introduced into and passed by this parliament on earlier occasions. He is urging the setting up of a board which would take the responsibility of establishing prices at which goods are to be sold. That is quite contrary to the well-established and well-tested fair trade practices which have been developed over the years in the United States and which we have tried to put into effect here.
I do not think we should apologize at any time for examining what they do in the United States, because in so far as trade practices are concerned their whole system is so similar to ours, or shall we say that ours in many ways has become related to theirs, that the methods they find desirable may well be found very desirable here also. In that regard I wish to interject the comment that I am not suggesting now, and I do not believe I ever shall suggest, that we should simply follow the United States in the things they do because of their size or wealth, but rather we should recognize what they do in dealing with problems similar to our own with an acceptance of the inescapable fact that in this stage of the world's development their trade and commerce exceeds that of any other country in the world.
What we are doing is placing before the house a subamendment which would ask hon. members to support the suggestion that consideration be given to the setting up of a fair trade commission. We do not attempt to draft the bill. That is not our responsibility; but may I also say we do not believe the government is in a position to draft such a bill at the present time. We are not asking that the drafting of this bill conform to the views of any particular group in the community. What we do say is that the bill should be drafted with a full recognition of the general welfare of the people of Canada, and most of all of those who in their day by day activities are bound to deal with the small merchants throughout the country who give that intimate daily service which has become very much a part of the life of our people.
I had hoped that the subamendment actually interpreted the views of the C.C.F. party, since we had not been able to interpret their own explanation; but as it does not then we certainly hope that, inasmuch as we are only asking for consideration of a fair
Combines Investigation Act trade commission, and since one of the spokesmen for the C.C.F. party has made it clear that he does not think this measure should pass-in fact the leader of their party has made that clear-we hope they will support the subamendment. I notice that the leader of the C.C.F. party, without actually raising any question, indicates that he does not approve of whait I have said as to his being concerned about its being passed at this stage. It would be a strange thing for him to introduce an amendment which says that the bill should stand for further consideration, and at the same time tell us that it should pass.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just state that the only way the amendment could be drawn was that the bill should "not be read a second time now."


George Alexander Drew: I had hoped it meant actually what it said, that further consideration should be given. I would point out to the leader of the C.C.F. party that the purpose of the amendment he put forward cannot be carried into effect unless there is time for further consideration, because he is proposing certain measures which obviously have not been dealt with yet in the house. However, I am not seeking to put words in his mouth, and if it is a fact that he thinks it is quite proper to deal with this legislation I accept that. But I would point out that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) does not hold that opinion.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member for York South said: "I do not know what the government is doing, rushing this legislation through." That is what we are saying. We just cannot understand it. We have not heard any evidence yet which supports the haste that is indicated'. We have not heard one word uttered in this house suggesting a single reason why the legislation could not stand over until the next regular session of parliament so that an adequate opportunity might be given to consider it. I would point out further that the hon. member for York South made an extremely interesting statement which I wish the C.C.F. members would bear in mind when they vote on the subamendment as well as their own amendment. He said- and I believe I am using almost his exact words, but in any event I believe I am accurately paraphrasing what he said-it is general knowledge that large businesses and chain stores will drive small retailers to the wall unless measures are taken to prevent that being done. That is exactly what we say.
We say that the bill simply prohibits, without any consideration with respect to public necessity, any agreements as to maintained

Combines Investigation Act prices, and that that is a dangerous thing. We say it is an improper thing, and we say there should be some way by which the possibility of smaller businessmen being driven to the wall can be obviated in any legislation that is put before us. In that respect I am not forgetting at all that there was a recommendation by the committee that if, as a result of the passing of this measure, abuses followed in the form of loss-leader activities or improper price cutting the government should vigorously enforce section 498A of the Criminal Code. I would have liked to hear more about the reason for the inclusion of that recommendation. It is a recommendation that the government do something it should be doing anyway.
This government should not require advice that it should enforce the criminal law or any section thereof. Of course we must remember that the committee was doubtless aware of the fact that the minister now in charge of enforcement had failed to deal with the requirements of the Combines Investigation Act which we now have under consideration. Doubtless they were somewhat worried that his sympathy with big business on that occasion would be reflected in his attitude toward big business in the future, and that he would not likely do anything that would interfere with big business inasmuch as he protected the flour milling combine by actually withholding publication of the report to the stage where prosecution became impossible. Perhaps that is the explanation of that recommendation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the only reason.


George Alexander Drew: I should think it is the only reason that is discernible. But surely that is rather blissful optimism on the part of the committee or anyone else-and of course when I say the committee I mean the directed majority which really put forward the report, because it was not unanimous-when we remember the length of time section 498A has been in the Criminal Code, and that there has not been a single prosecution by this government thereunder. Are we to believe that never in all these years has there been a single case where loss-leader practices, unfair price cutting or any of the things covered by section 498A has occurred? If business transactions in this country are being conducted on a basis as pure as that, why then are we being asked to take an axe to the whole commercial structure that has been built up? In effect we are told on the one hand that Canadian trade practices are so good that there has been no need to employ section 498A, and on the other hand we are
[Mr. Drew.l

told that we simply must ban this practice which has become so much a part of our commercial structure. Granted they are not related to the same thing, but they are two parts of the same problem. No; it would certainly be a great optimist who would think that at this stage we could suddenly hope for great results from section 498A under this government. I am satisfied that section 498A has all the power necessary to deal with this problem if there is abuse of the public interest. I am satisfied that section 498A could have been used with great benefit in many cases where it has not been employed. But there again we have evidence that this government has obviously no faith in its use.
There is another aspect of section 498A which I would point out. In that section there is no unqualified provision that certain things cannot be done, of the nature contemplated in the legislation now before us. It would seem to me that part of section 498 which precedes 498A provides that nothing shall be done to unduly prevent or lessen competition in the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity or in the price of insurance upon a person or property. Those are related sections. On the one hand there is a section that prohibits certain practices, and on the other hand the section dealing with price discrimination. Surely between section 498 and 498A there was ample power to deal with any arrangement under which there would be price discrimination or agreement in regard to price that would be injurious to the public.
In any event the fact remains that section 498A, which is the section concerning price discrimination, has never been enforced at any time by this government. Consequently it cannot, by itself, be regarded as an adequate safeguard for the small merchant who would be affected by the legislation now before us. This is simply a bald statement that practices which have been, in vogue for fifty years or more shall be discontinued, and that failure to discontinue those practices shall, in itself, constitute an offence punishable by the courts. If some dangerous growth threatens the human body there is always one simple way the doctor can end the threat that the offending growth will extend to other areas; he can shoot the patient.


James Joseph McCann: That is not common practice.


George Alexander Drew: That will cure it for all time. As the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) has said, that is not common practice. It is usually regarded as unethical for the doctor to take such a drastic course to

end the threat of an offending growth in the body. On the contrary the established practice, as the Minister of National Revenue so well knows from his own experience, is to use medical experience and surgical skill to remove the growth which is causing concern. I suggest that what is being done here is an attempt to cure a growth, to which there is certainly objection if it is injuring the body of our national life; but the answer is not to shoot the patient, which is what is recommended in this bill.
We are suggesting that the more commonly accepted practice be employed, and that there be an opportunity to examine this problem from the point of view of the general welfare of our people. I know it will be said that there was a commission on this subject some years ago, and there was a committee. It will be pointed out that we now have the MacQuarrie committee, and also that a committee of the house was appointed to examine the report of that MacQuarrie committee. All the results of these investigations are before us, and we have the advantage of their recommendation. I hope that, at this stage of the session and at this stage of the discussion, no hon. member of this house including the minister who is putting this measure forward will suggest that there has been complete, adequate and impartial inquiry into the facts. In his brief remarks today concerning this measure the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said he thought we should await a further report of the MacQuarrie committee before adopting other legislation, but that in the meantime section 498A could be employed to deal with any abuses that might occur.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what the Prime Minister has pointed out is that there was only an interim report, and that the interim report was examined by a hobbled committee. The hobbled committee brought in the report which it was directed to bring in, and we have before us now no real evidence on which to form an opinion as to what should be done in the interests of the people of Canada. It is the people of Canada whose welfare is under consideration in this case. We have been urging that this measure should stand. We introduced a motion that would call for six months' delay in the consideration of this measure. I am still convinced that would be the wisest course, and I am satisfied there are a great many hon. members on the other side of the house who are satisfied that would be the wisest course. I would point out that we have had speeches by Liberal members, and that three of those
Combines Investigation Act speeches indicated real opposition to the provisions in this bill. I grant that there have not been as many speeches from the Liberal ranks as might have appeared appropriate in relation to a measure as important as this.
I heard some discussion about the number of speeches that had been made, as though there was some ground for criticism in that fact. Some emphasis was placed upon the number of Conservative members who have spoken in this debate. Mr. Speaker, this is parliament. The word itself indicates what this is supposed to be. The word is derived from the French parler, to speak. This is a place where members are supposed to express their opinions in the hope that others might be persuaded to change their views, and to come to a conclusion which will be related to a genuine exchange of ideas. The moment it becomes an accepted proposition that opinions are not changed by arguments in this house we might just as well stop having members come here; simply put a dummy in each chair, with a particular colour to identify the party to which he belongs; then just have one person, representative of each party, who on each particular occasion will indicate how the dummies will be called upon to express their votes in relation to any measure that is before the house. That is, in effect, what we say the moment it is even suggested that speeches are not desirable in this house and that no opinions are changed by the speeches that are made.
This is not intended to be a chamber of silence. This is intended to be a place where the business of the country is done by informal and free debate about the merits of the various measures that are introduced. It would be a great deal better if we had heard from most of the Liberal members, because this is something that affects every community; it affects every part of this vast country. But I would point out that by far the most effective speeches made by the Liberal members, including that of the minister who introduced the measure, were the three speeches made in opposition to this bill. There was the speech of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry) who coined an expression which on this day, getting close to Christmas, I shall not repeat -at least not today. Then there was that of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) and that of the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom) who indicated quite clearly why he did not think this was a good measure. But there have been only a few speeches from other Liberal members in regard to this subject. However, Mr. Speaker, those speeches which were made-

Combines Investigation Act that is, those in support of the measure other than that by the minister who introduced it and that by the chairman of the committee, which were simply stating formal ideas in support of the bill-were useful speeches. One of those speeches was by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking); and I think it was an extremely useful speech. He indicated why it is so important that this measure should be delayed and the members should have a chance to consult their constituents before they vote on it. On December 18 the hon. member for Wellington South had this to say, as reported at page 2170 of Hansard:
After I received a few telegrams from various business people in my riding I spent some time making inquiries to find out whether any of the small shopkeepers who operate their own individual businesses on the corners of my towns and cities had made any representations to have price maintenance brought into effect. I could not find an instance where one of the small shopkeepers had suggested that they wanted or had instigated price maintenance. Thus I must assume that although at the present time they are under the operation of price maintenance, it was not instigated at their request; and since it was not instigated at their request I started to figure out who wants this thing.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that he said he had explored the situation, that he had made inquiries from small shopkeepers and had not found any of them who really wanted price maintenance. I have mentioned that matter because it was a most definite statement by a member of the Liberal party that he had actually consulted his own constituents and his own small retail merchants in order to find out whether or not they liked this legislation. Many of the members in this house might well have been affected in their thinking about this subject by that strongly stated opinion. I therefore think that it is of importance that the members should know how greatly at variance that statement was with what the shopkeepers in Guelph thought. I have here a telegram, and I am glad to see that the hon. member for Wellington South has entered the house and will hear me read it. This is a telegram from the Guelph Retail Druggists Association, signed by F. E. Wagner, president. It is dated Guelph, Ontario, December 20, and reads as follows:
We resent statement by Henry Hosking that "he had made a survey of the retailers in his own constituency and found that none of the small retailers had complained about the government's bill on retail price fixing." This is deliberately misleading. Telegrams protesting the Garson legislation were sent to him by many Guelph retailers on October 16-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if a statement from outside the house is allowed to be read contradicting what a member has said in the house. See Beauchesne's third edition, paragraph 259.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, if there is any objection taken to it I shall of course abide by your decision.


Mr. Hosking:: Let him read it.


George Alexander Drew: As the hon. member for Wellington South has indicated that he wants me to read it, perhaps you will allow me to continue, Mr. Speaker.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think the hon. member would want to be out of order.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no. But I would be happy to comply with the wishes of the hon. member for Wellington South.


Mr. Speaker:: I can only allow this procedure with the unanimous consent of the house. Is there unanimous consent?


Alphonse Fournier: No. I do not know that, just to meet the wishes of the hon. member, the hon. gentleman should be allowed to be out of order. I know he would not want that himself.


George Alexander Drew: Since this is a telegram of which I would assume the hon. member for Wellington South probably has a copy or has a general interpretation by another telegram, I would have thought that perhaps it might be put on Hansard, since he is in the house and can challenge its accuracy if it in any way misinterprets what has been put forward.


Alphonse Fournier: No. If the hon. gentleman has a copy of the telegram he does not need to have it read in the house. He knows what is in it.


George Harris Hees: We should like to hear it.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I should allow a controversy between people who are outside of the house and those who are in the house.


George Alexander Drew: May I say that from several telegrams I have received from merchants in Guelph and in Wellington South it is quite clear that the statement made by the hon. member for Wellington South clearly failed to indicate what is the real attitude of the retail merchants in that constituency. I am raising this point now simply to indicate how desirable it is that the members have an opportunity to consult their constituents and meet the retail merchants in their home communities. I am hopeful that when they are given that opportunity after this house adjourns, whenever that may be, they will find ample occasion to meet them and find out just what they really think about this measure. That procedure will help many hon. members in forming their opinions when they are called upon, at some date in the future, to vote upon this bill.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Since I have come under discussion, and since I allowed to stand in Hansard one word which I should have had deleted, namely the word "wanted", I should like for the information of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew)-and I imagine he is not trying to be facetious-


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no.


Henry Alfred Hosking: -to state that I said-and most of the hon. members in the house realize that is what I meant-I had received some few telegrams objecting to this legislation. That was my inference in the first instance. I then said that I had inquired from many small shopkeepers who were enjoying some form of price maintenance in the products they sell at the present time whether they had instigated the practice of price maintenance; and in every case they said they had had nothing whatever to do with its instigation. It was therefore something that was thrust on them. Perhaps at the present moment they are enjoying some benefits, but as time went on they would reap the disadvantages which must necessarily come from it. While that is going on all the purchasers of course would suffer at the same time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wellington South has indicated he feels that perhaps he would have wished to slightly vary the statement he made at that time; but the fact remains-


Henry Alfred Hosking: Just delete one word.


George Alexander Drew: -it was in relation to the statement he did make, as reported, that these objections were taken. In any event I hope the hon. member will have ample opportunity to meet the retail merchants in Guelph when he returns. I do hope he will be able to return for Christmas day, and on that occasion he will be able to find out just exactly what they do think about this matter. I also think that it will be extremely helpful if other hon. members have that opportunity. That is why I so strongly hope that even at this stage of the session the government will decide to withdraw this measure and hold it over until the next session. By doing that they could still use whatever time remains while we are here on this occasion to deal with other very important matters that are still on the order paper.
I do want to .assure the members of the government and the members of this house that we are opposing this measure in the belief that it will do great injury to the people of Canada if it becomes law. In this we are fighting what we believe to be the cause of
Combines Investigation Act the people of Canada. We believe we are fighting against monopolies which would be created by this legislation now before us.
A suggestion has been made that opposition to this measure indicates the support of big business. What a travesty; what a complete perversion of the facts. The fact is, as the hon. member for York South pointed out, there is no doubt that if this measure becomes law, without the most adequate safeguards against loss-leader transactions and unfair price cutting, the small merchant will go to the wall. That is what he said. That is what many of us believe. We have pointed out that the only safeguard that remains is the dusty weapon which has never been taken off the shelf by this government. They are prepared to shoot the patient with another weapon, but they are not prepared to use the weapon that already exists, and which could keep away the offender who might really do some harm to the Canadian people if there were any wrongdoing of this kind.
It is so easy to suggest that big business would be opposed to this measure. Well, we saw what big business thought about this. We saw what the biggest business in Canada thought about it. I wish to qualify that remark by statements I have made before. I for one do not believe that bigness of itself is any cause for criticism. I think we would simply be hiding from our eyes the great advances that have taken place in merchandising if we did not recognize that the big stores in this country have played their full part in developing the efficiency of merchandising generally. The big stores have their place, and the small stores have their place. We do point out, however, that the small merchants are closer to the people; that the small merchants throughout Canada generally are those upon whom people rely from day to day. Neither should we on the one hand disregard the rights of the big businesses to do their business legitimately, nor on the other should we under any circumstances do something that will almost automatically remove any safeguard for the small merchants who would be affected in this way. Once again I remind the house that it is not only the members of this party who have stated the dangers that exist, but others as well have pointed out that the small merchant will go to the wall if he has no basis of legitimate protection against practices which he could not possibly contend with.
Then again let us consider what would happen if this legislation were delayed until next session. It would not become law perhaps until March or April; What difference would that make? The Prime Minister has
2348	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act indicated that he does not think it is going to have much effect on retail prices. He does not think it is going to have much effect on the cost of living. Others have said the same thing. If that is so, what single reason is there before this house today, what single reason has been presented by the government that the members of this house should accept the responsibility of upsetting the commercial and trade practices which have been in force in this country ever since the turn of the century? I do suggest in all seriousness that hon. members consider the practical aspects of this problem. It is easy enough to say we must not permit anything that would restrict competition; it is easy enough to say that these prices are fixed by manufacturers; it is easy enough to say that if prices are to be fixed it should be done by the government; but let us remember this. All the evidence we have is to the effect that it is the merchants themselves who want this price fixing, or rather this price agreement established, rather than the manufacturers, because the manufacturers could probably sell their goods in any event.
The evidence before the committee, limited though it was, made it reasonably clear to anyone that it was the merchants who seek agreements of this kind. Yes, by all means let hon. members explore the possibility of preventing abuses; by all means let hon. members seek to enact laws which will protect the Canadian purchaser from practices which are contrary to his interest; by all means let hon. members pass laws which will prohibit anything that is clearly anti-social. But that should be the test, and we should be able to say that it is anti-social, that it is contrary to the public interest, that it is actually doing some harm before we, with our responsibility as members of the high court of parliament, should pass judgment and say that something is a criminal offence which has never been a criminal offence before. That is what we are being asked to do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, unless there are reasons which have not been disclosed, unless there are reasons stronger than any that have been suggested, let every hon. member in his own mind ask himself: why should this* bill not stand until the next regular session of parliament so a real inquiry could be made, so all the organizations affected could be really heard; and they were not heard. In that way the members themselves would have the advantage of the advice they would receive in regard to this subject.
If this bill should pass as it stands, it is not easy for anyone to predict exactly what will happen in any particular case. One cannot tell, for instance, whether in this instance


the minister would be any more likely to enforce this measure than he has enforced section 498A. That of course is something we must bear in mind. It is perfectly true that the minister might take just as little action under this as was taken under section 498A, and of course that was exactly zero. Birt assuming for the sake of argument that it would be the intention of the government and of the minister responsible to enforce the act when it became law, then let us see some of the things that would happen which would have to be balanced fairly against whatever advantages are claimed; and those advantages are still very vague and uncertain in so far as any evidence we have had placed before us is concerned.
First of all, this would happen. If there is not to be agreement as to prices in regard to nationally-advertised products such as automobiles, refrigerators, washing machines, drugs or, shall we say, oil and gasoline, or anything of that nature, then of course there is no established price level. Then let us see what happens to the small merchants. Most small merchants deal with banks, and have certain credit at those banks. They depend upon that credit to a very large extent to carry on their daily operations. Most cautious bank managers would call in a small merchant and say to him, "I regret very much to point out to you that since I no longer know what your inventory is worth, I must ask you immediately to reduce your credit to a very substantial degree." The man would probably say, "Well, as a result of the order of Mr. Graham Towers last spring, something with which parliament had nothing to do, my credit has been already very severely restricted this year. I do not know that within the same year I am going to be able still further to pay off debts which I carry as an ordinary line of credit."
I do not need to suggest what the alternative would be. The alternative would be that a merchant who was not able to pay off the amount required would have no choice but to sell what he had at any price, to realize the amount necessary to secure the amount of the debts for which payment was being demanded.
I can imagine some people saying that it would be a very nice thing to get some of these things cheaply. Naturally we would all like to get them cheaply. Naturally we are all anxious to see things a lot cheaper than they are. For instance, we have pointed out that it would be a good thing if they could be cheaper today through the simple and easy process of the government removing the unnecessary sales tax which they

increased earlier this year, and the unnecessary excise and other special taxes they put on. That would be one way to reduce prices and to satisfy the public very quickly and very easily. But that was not done. However, in this case, in the end it would be the consumer who would suffer; because after all the consumer is not only a person who goes about looking for things he may buy cheaply; he is a person who wants to be able to get something he needs at a place he can reach within a reasonable time, when he needs it. He wants some local merchant within easy range who can afford to carry sufficiently varied lines so that the requirements of the ordinary community in the country, anywhere from the Atlantic to the Pacific, can be met by the inventory on hand. Therefore it is the consumer, the ordinary consumer, the purchaser, who is greatly interested in the merchant being able to maintain that line of credit which will permit him to operate.
But what happens if he is not able to operate? We all know what happens. It was the hon. member for York South who pointed out what would happen. The larger business would be able to gobble up the smaller ones. This bill would assist monopoly, as this government has assisted monopoly over and over again. If ever there was a government that has advanced and created monopoly it is the government now in power.
This would simply be one further step to create and extend vast monopolies. There is no one who has had practical experience in matters of this kind who does not know that there are many ways in which it would be possible to organize business in a manner that would make the enforcement of this measure very difficult. The simplest device would be for great drug-trading organizations, for instance, to buy out small merchants, or to buy part interests in those stores, and in this way create huge monopolies where there would be no question of price-fixing, because it would be one organization establishing its own prices.
I am surprised that members of the C.C.F. have displayed so little awareness of this very real danger which would be created by the measure before us. That is a danger- and I might suggest that the hon. member for York South pointed it out very clearly.
Of course in fairness to him I must say he made the reservation that there should be adequate safeguards. However, I am pointing out that the only safeguard that exists has never been used. It has got pretty rusty after all these years it has been lying unused, during which it has not been employed by this government.
Combines Investigation Act
When we talk about the manufacturer, let us remember that in every one of the lines we have been discussing there are a number of manufacturers, and that either there is competition among those manufacturers or there is not. If there are agreements among manufacturers of similar lines of products that prevent real competition, then the minister now presenting this measure has it within his power to deal with that matter under the Combines Investigation Act. There is no question about it. If there exist combines which prohibit real competition among manufacturers making the same lines, then it is the duty of the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act to investigate the situation, and it is the duty of the minister to prosecute them. If there is real competition, then no single manufacturer can set a list of prices which are unreasonable and which are beyond the desire of the public to pay, for the simple reason that another manufacturer will undersell the first one by offering the same or a similar article. Then the laws of competition will still operate on the prices of the goods sold.
If this measure passes, then certainly it will be possible to encourage monopolies which might destroy that measure of competition which still remains as a safeguard.
At some later date, when the bill is in committee, it will be possible to direct a number of questions to the minister who has presented the measure to the house. On that occasion it will be my intention, as it will be the intention of others, to direct most searching questions to the minister as to the evidence he really has to support legislation of this kind, and why it is necessary that we proceed in this way. I say again that we are being asked to pass legislation that affects not only thousands of retail merchants but hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of our people who depend upon them for their daily requirements. We are being asked to pass legislation which will change our established mercantile system to a very considerable extent. We are being asked to do that without any evidence to support the course that is proposed and, above all, without any evidence as to why this sloppy and incomplete legislation should be adopted by this high court of parliament in this indecent haste.
There is an alternative presented in the amendment as amended by the subamendment: withhold the legislation and conduct an inquiry. In conducting that inquiry, also explore the advisability of having a fair trade commission. I would point out that in putting forward this recommendation I am simply following the stated view of the Conservative party which has been a matter of legislative as well as other record for a great many

Combines Investigation Act years. I am not going to take serious issue with the statements that have been made by certain members who apparently gained some measure of personal satisfaction when they said the Conservative party was being inconsistent. The statements were loose, and I recognize that they were made without care or any attempt to examine the facts.
I would point out that in 1935 the Conservative party introduced a measure which was passed by the House of Commons and the parliament of Canada. I believe that in any examination of this subject it would be well to consider what was done at that time. I urge hon. members to examine that legislation and also what took place afterward. If they do they will see why great caution should be exercised in proceeding with this measure at this time. In 1935 the parliament of Canada passed the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act which carried into legislative form many of the ideas incorporated in the fair trade laws of the United States. It was intended to set up a commission to administer the Combines Investigation Act as well as the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act. The section of that act which is of particular significance to the discussion now taking place is section 14. In order that hon. members may know what was done and what the position of the Conservative party was at that time, I should like to place on the record that section, which is headed "Price and Production Agreements" and reads:
14. (1) In any ease where the commission, after full investigation under the Combines Investigation Act, is unanimously of opinion that wasteful or demoralizing competition exists in any specific industry, and that agreements between the persons engaged in the industry to modify such competition by controlling and regulating prices or production would not result in injury to or undue restraint of trade or be detrimental to or against the interest of the public, or where such agreements exist and in the unanimous opinion of the commission but for their existence wasteful or demoralizing competition would exist in any specific industry, the commission may so advise the governor in council and recommend that certain agreements be approved.
(2)	The governor in council may, if of opinion that the conclusions of the commission are well founded, approve of any such agreement, and shall make regulations requiring the commission to determine from time to time whether the agreement is resulting in injury to or undue restraint of trade or is detrimental to the public interest.
(3)	The commission shall require persons engaged in the industry to furnish full information relating to operations within the industry under the agreement and may at any time, of its own motion and in its absolute discretion, advise the governor in council to rescind the approval of the agreement and the governor in council may rescind the approval accordingly.
(4)	In any case where the governor in council has approved an agreement under this section, no prosecution of a party to such agreement shall be instituted under the Combines Investigation Act or under sections four hundred and ninety-eight and four hundred and ninety-eight A or any other


relevant section of the Criminal Code for an offence arising in the performance of such agreement, except with the consent of the commission.
That section indicated an attempt to bring this type of mercantile practice under supervision and at the same time permit agreements which are described as price-fixing agreements to be brought into effect where it was established that they were not contrary to the public interest. I submit that any . agreement which is not contrary to the public interest should be allowed in any event. That should be the one test of the measure now before us as far as safeguarding practices which are actually shown to be in. the public interest is concerned. Anyone who is following a practice which is in the public interest should be able to continue that practice.
I assume all hon. members know that section 14 was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada. The other sections of the act were declared to be intra vires of the parliament of Canada, but they never became operative because section 14 was really the key section. I think there were other sections that might have been employed to some advantage, but the fact is the act has been inoperative.
It is important for us to remember that, when this section was enacted, am attempt was made to put into effect in Canada what are described as fair trade practices. An attempt was made to set up in Canada a commission which would permit agreements of this kind to operate where it was demonstrated that they were not contrary to the public interest. The fact that the courts held that this subject matter was not within the authority of the parliament of Canada is one reason I have suggested that, in addition to the caution which members should show in passing the bill, there should be additional caution on the part of the government to make sure beyond any possible doubt that the measure itself is within the powers of parliament. The amendment before the house with the subamendment makes it possible for the government as well as others to examine this question, because they will be able to obtain legal advice, and they will also be able to consult the provincial authorities. Then if it is decided there are constitutional problems involved, as I most certainly think there are, it will be possible for them to lay the foundation for some other procedure which would bring about the kind of result that has been obtained in other cases where it has been found that some subject of general interest to the people of Canada, but which is nevertheless

exclusively within provincial jurisdiction under our constitution, can be brought into general operation.
I think as Canadians we should be very proud of the fact that over the years under different governments, Liberal and Conservative-and of course those are the only governments we have ever had in Canada-


An hon. Member:: Or likely ever will have.


George Alexander Drew: As someone has said, or likely ever will have-we have seen a real attempt to deal with the problems which are national in scope but which nevertheless are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I think we can compliment ourselves on the good will and spirit of co-operation that have been displayed in Canada so that over many long years agreement has been reached as to ways in which all doubts could be removed and the jurisdiction of both dominion and provincial governments exercised on behalf of the people by legislation covering both the dominion and the provincial fields. Without extending the legal argument at this time, I do suggest that it would be well for caution to be exercised with regard to this bill, and that most certainly before a measure of such sweeping powers comes into effect, with its impact upon the whole mercantile and commercial life of Canada, every last possibility that it may not be within the jurisdiction of this parliament should be removed.
It would be a most unfortunate thing if legislation were passed which greatly disturbed our whole mercantile and commercial system and it was then found that the act was ultra vires; because then we would have a great deal of difficulty in unscrambling the egg which we had scrambled so effectively. I think the whole tendency on this continent for many long years has been to recognize that unrestrained and unbridled competition in the end injures the consumer more than any other person in the community. When arguments are made by the government that they are so concerned with the welfare of the consumer, let it be remembered that unrestrained and unbridled competition has been harmful to the consumer, and that because of that recognized fact it has been the consumer most of all under our democratic system who has insisted that there be some appropriate restraints on competition which could have a damaging effect upon the economic and commercial life of this or any other country.
The idea of absolutely pure and unrestrained competition is of course an idea that gained some favour more than a hundred
Combines Investigation Act years ago and resulted in the most shocking working conditions, the most shocking employment of young people and the most shameful abuse of the power of money. It was that situation which led to the introduction of many of the laws which over the years have brought us step by step to this day when it can be safely said that there is a consciousness at all times in the minds of the members of our parliament and our legislatures that it is the welfare of our people generally, and of those people least able to look after their own safety and security, that should at all times be the first concern of parliament and of the laws we pass.
Hard competition, as it may be described, is no longer supported in theory by any people who have studied the history of that period. But let us make no mistake; this bill is a return to hard competition. It is an assertion of the doctrine of the Manchester school of more than one hundred years ago. The bill simply throws to the wolves those who cannot stand the strain imposed by the wealth of the larger businesses. That was the point put forward by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), and in this case I have no hesitation in accepting the validity of his contention. There is of course the other type of competition which has come to be described as soft competition. That is competition where there is no real effort to compete, where there is a blanket over everything, where the state says what will be done and everybody conforms to regulations.
One of the problems that presents itself to my mind today is to know just which of these two doctrines the members of the C.C.F. party are really supporting at this time, because I was under the impression-of course I may be wrong-that the C.C.F. party was committed to the idea of soft competition. I thought the C.C.F. party was committed to the idea that the government should decide what the basis should be, and in fact unless I have wholly misinterpreted the statement of the leader of that party that is what he is recommending in this case.


Major James William Coldwell: That is correct.


George Alexander Drew: I am glad to have my mind cleared on that. That is what is known as soft competition. That is known as the parasol type of trading.


Joseph William Noseworthy: What school is that?


George Alexander Drew: That is the C.C.F. school. That is the school where the government creates a parasol. Underneath the parasol are little figures which the ordinary trader is supposed
2352	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act to read. They will tell him exactly what he must do, and if he does that he will keep out of the rain, the rain in this case being the punitive forces which would . insist upon recognition of that parasol. That is soft trading, soft competition.
I must say that I really was greatly encouraged when I heard the hon. member for York South giving what I understood to be a clear exposition of the middle road in trade, what we might regard as sound competition. I understood him to advocate that type of competition which on the one hand recognizes the dangers of unrestrained and unbridled competition, and on the other hand the weakening effects of complete control of prices and details of that kind by government agencies.


Mr. Herridge:: The member for York South was supporting our amendment.


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly the difficulty which was presented in my mind, because I thought the member for York South had put forth a sound argument in favour of that type of competition which on the one hand recognizes the dangers of unbridled and unlimited competition, and on the other hand recognizes the dangers of the parasol regimented type of competition, call it what you will. Most certainly he did recognize the dangers of the situation which would be created by this measure. Because of that I find it difficult to understand how he is going to vote for this measure when that time ultimately does come.
I have sought to emphasize, in every way I can, the fact that a great deal more attention should be paid to this subject and there should be an opportunity for further consideration. May I express the most earnest hope that when the members go home for Christmas, even if it is only for one day, the merchants in their communities seek them out and indicate exactly what they think of a measure of this kind. It will be most helpful to the members of this house if all the merchants of this country will make sure that, on that single day when members are home, they take the opportunity to tell the members exactly what they do think about this legislation. I feel quite sure a number of the merchants in Guelph are going to call upon the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) when he gets home. After all, that is democracy in operation. I am most hopeful that after that expression of opinion has been registered, many of the members will change their opinions on this subject.
Having said that, may I emphasize my own belief that this is a most difficult subject. It
IMr. Drew.]

is one of the most complicated problems with which this or any other government will be called upon to deal. The balance between what is desirable in the way of preventing abuses and what would be undesirable in preventing legitimate and desirable practices is difficult to achieve. I do not think the measure before us provides any such balance. This measure is simply adopting the device of shooting the patient. This method cures the ailment, it is true, but then we have to wait for the grief that will follow that rather drastic method of dealing with certain abuses which may exist and which certainly should be dealt with under some effective device where they do exist. I assure hon. members that in taking the time we have-and we have not hesitated to take that time-we have done so in the hope that the government may come to the conclusion that it will be desirable to withdraw this measure for the time being to obtain further information. Then, on the basis of that further information, a measure could be drafted which would give us the best type of fair trade practices, in accordance with our own extensive experience and designed particularly for the Canadian economy, but nevertheless taking full advantage of the experience in other countries. This would ensure that when our legislation was passed into law each one of us would be convinced that it represented the best possible judgment of the high court of parliament.
Surely that is a worthy objective. Surely that is not something anybody can criticize. I assure hon. members that in the objections we have raised and the arguments we have put forward we have availed ourselves of the opportunity open to the opposition to express opinions which may at some point convince the government.
I say quite frankly that one of the advantages of the deliberate extension of a debate is that it is possible for the people themselves to learn what is taking place in parliament, and as a result of that knowledge communicate their views to the members of parliament. In the arguments we have made we have not hesitated to cover all the points that seemed to us to be related to this problem, with the idea that perhaps the government and its supporters may change their opinion and also that perhaps the people affected by this legislation, the consumer and the small merchant, might help to change the government's opinion. For that reason I am earnestly hoping that members in this house may have an opportunity to meet those they represent, and that all the merchants in the various communities will seek out their members and make sure those members do know what

they are thinking. I hope also that as many of the real consumers as possible, not just those who describe themselves as such, will seek out the members and explain to them at some length just what they really think of legislation of this type.
Then of course the members will come back with better information. Perhaps they might even come back-and I hope they may do so-with the suggestion that this legislation stand over until the next regular session of parliament. That brings me back to the suggestion that, since it is apparent that this debate is not going to end quickly, it might be well to let this bill stand at this point, to proceed with other measures that are before the house, to dispose of any that can be disposed of, and then to consider carefully whether this measure should be returned at all. I hope the decision might be in accordance with the recommendation I have made, namely that this measure would not be returned at this time but that steps would be taken to have adequate inquiry, and that the measure would be dealt with carefully and in the best possible way when the next session meets.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is in his place. I can only express to him again my hope that, whether or not we are in disagreement on this matter, he will recognize the fact that we feel strongly on this subject and that we are simply expressing the conviction that this is most dangerous legislation when we present our arguments which, I might say, as they apply to other aspects of this problem, will be continued as this measure is under discussion. I feel that if it were possible to let this measure stand so hon. members might obtain more information from their personal contacts, we might perhaps be able to deal more expeditiously with some of the other measures that still remain on the order paper.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to do so I should like to get some information from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on one point. Even if the fair trade commission he suggests were set up, does he not think it would also be necessary to abolish the vertical type of price maintenance we now have, in order to make it possible for this commission to function?


George Alexander Drew: I should like to answer that question, Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to do so. Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear on that point. In introducing the subamendment and simply stating that we were asking that consideration be given to the setting up of a fair trade commission, we recognize the fact that there must be a much broader examination of this subject than has yet taken
Combines Investigation Act place. We recognize the fact that there are practices which should be under restraint. We recognize the fact-as it has been recognized in earlier attempts which have been made in this house to pass legislation.-that there are practices which should be stoppedi But it is also recognized that there are trade practices along those lines that are in the interests of the public. What I said was that I did not think at this stage we should seek to draft the bill, but rather that we should1 assert as a principle that we want this measure held back so there might be further inquiry, and so the advisability of having a fair trade commission, under which the most desirable type of trade practice could be set up, should' be carefully examined by the government and by parliament.


Joseph William Noseworthy: May I ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the consent of the hon. member.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Under the commission the hon. member suggests or visualizes in his party's amendment, would the manufacturer or a commission appointed by the government have the final say in what the price should be? That is the point, I think. If I understand the leader of the opposition correctly, he is advocating some form of commission under which the manufacturer will still be free to set his price. We were suggesting a body responsible to this parliament where that price would be determined and regulated. .


George Alexander Drew: Yes, Mr. Speaker; that is what I understood. I for one certainly do not support the idea that those who are not themselves in a particular business are better able to decide what a business can do than are those engaged in it. I believe that a commission can be set up which will supervise practices of this kind. Without in any way seeking to evade the question, may I point out, as I did in the answer I just gave to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), that we are not putting forward a bill, and that we are not attempting to cross the "t's" and to dot the "i's".


Joseph William Noseworthy: You never do.


An hon. Member:: Neither does the C.C.F.


George Alexander Drew: Let me answer that comment by saying that we do, to this extent. The Conservative party, not the C.C.F., has had the responsibility of government in this country for about half the time since confederation, and they were definite enough about it to pass, in 1935, a bill which the courts unfortunately held to be ultra vires. The general purpose that was intended, with

Business of the House the advances that have taken place, is the general purpose of our party today, namely to have the best legislation in the interests of the consumers of this country, which will at the same time protect the independence of our people from officialdom and from the rigid type of prices which seem to be so affectionately regarded by some of the members of the C.C.F. party.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I move the adjournment of this debate until later this day, not for the purpose of complying with the suggestion of the leader of the opposition but for the purpose of reverting for a few moments, as was agreed this morning, to the notice of motion with respect to the date to which adjournment should be taken when the house adjourns this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent the debate was adjourned until later this day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That, notwithstanding any other previous order of this house, when this house adjourns on Friday, December 21, 1951, unless it be otherwise ordered at that time, it stand adjourned until Thursday, December 27, 1951, at 11 o'clock a.m.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it has, I think, become evident that it is not reasonable to expect that, either today or tomorrow, the business of the house could be completed with the care that should be given to matters of that importance, and that it will be necessary to have some further time than that which would remain this day and tomorrow. That being the case, unless an order is made, the house would be required, under the existing orders, to sit tomorrow, Monday and even Christmas day. I do not think that would be the desire of hon. members. I am suggesting that, when we reach the hour of adjournment today, the adjournment be to Thursday morning at 11 o'clock. At that time I would hope we would be able to give to the matters that are still to be dealt with such further consideration as may be required, and that they can be disposed of in an orderly and proper manner. I would like to submit this motion so hon. members would know at this time that they would not be required to be here tomorrow, nor the day before Christmas, nor Christmas day, nor even the day after Christmas, but only on the following day.


George Alexander Drew: There are just one or two comments I should like to make. There was one point on which I was not clear. The Prime Minister said the house will adjourn today at what hour?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The order that is in existence provides that the house shall adjourn, without question put, at ten o'clock. That is the order that is in effect at the present time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not going to raise any objection to the time of adjournment today, but I do raise the question as to whether it is desirable that the time at which we should meet on Thursday next should be at eleven o'clock in the morning, in view of the fact that a number of the trains and planes on which hon. members will be coming in that day will not bring them in by that time. It is generally recognized that the afternoon sitting permits hon. members to arrive here in time to attend. I am simply putting this forward. As will be recognized, it does not affect me personally, but there are a number of hon. members who might be affected by that hour. The other point that I wish to make is this. We still have a very large amount of important business on the order paper in addition to the measure now under consideration. We of course have not had the advantage of seeing the amendment to the Public Works Act, but I can assure hon. members that unless the amendment very substantially varies the bill that is before us, that debate will not be short.
There are other measures of considerable importance. I do think, in making a decision as to the time we should meet, that full regard should be had to what course will be followed. Do we again adjourn for New Year's day? Of course if it is not intended to adjourn for New Year's day no problem arises in that respect. But I would merely put forward the suggestion to the Prime Minister that perhaps he might consider even at this moment just what the proposal would be in that respect, because if there were any thought of making any break for New Year's day then perhaps consideration might be given to the advantage of adjourning until a date in January, somewhere about the middle of that month.
I have no thought of making any amendment or of opposing the resolution. I will accept whatever resolution is put forward in regard to the carrying on of the business of this house as rapidly as possible, consistent with the traditional rights of parliament. But I just put this forward for consideration. In January the greatest living statesman is going to visit Ottawa. The greatest parliamentarian under our parliamentary system will be here; and if the adjournment is going to carry us

into the month of January I would suggest that consideration might be given to the fact that many hon. members might like to know whether the house will be sitting when Mr. Churchill will be here, so this great exponent of our parliamentary system might be heard on the floor of this house, and when the people of Canada hear what he has to say they would know it was being said from a background similar in every way to that background with which he has so constantly been associated throughout his mature years. I merely put the suggestion forward. Its consideration will of course be related to the expectation of the Prime Minister as to when our business will be completed. And might I add, the time our business will be completed will be very largely governed by whether the government decides to carry forward this bill or to let it stand over until the next regular session of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I just wish to add a word to make it quite clear that there is not, nor is there likely to be, any intention on the part of the government not to proceed with this bill before parliament prorogues.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson for the second reading of Bill No. 36, to amend the Combines Investigation Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Caldwell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mrs. Pairclough.
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to say a word about the last comment made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), namely that when members are home, even though for a somewhat limited holiday, they might try to inform themselves as to the state of public opinion in their respective constituencies. I think it is fair to say that as far as evidence has come before the committee as yet, certainly from the experience on this side, so far as expressions of opinion from citizens are concerned, there have been many, many times as many opinions against the bill as in favour of it. I am not overlooking the fact that a good many of these opinions came from interested parties. But on the other hand I think it is fair to say that as time goes on there is more and more evidence from people who are interested not as merchants but as consumers. I think there is considerable evidence-evidence
Combines Investigation Act which encourages me greatly in the view which we are putting forward-that the consumers are beginning to take a hand in this, and I suggest that the leader of the opposition was very wise in making the suggestion he did.
Like him, I was interested to hear what the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) had to say. I wish to make one comment particularly on only one line of his thought. He used quite strong words in suggesting that we might still stop, look and listen. These are not his words but mine: that we might still have time to take another look at this measure. Certainly I agree with him there, and I wish to make a few comments along that line. I echo just briefly what the leader of the opposition said. What is the urgency? Is it a matter of life or death? Well, the only suggestion of life or death is from many people who think it may be a matter of life or death for them if this is passed. But I have not heard a suggestion from any quarter that it would be a matter of life or death if it should wait for a few weeks. No one has suggested that. I do not think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will suggest it, and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) certainly did not suggest it.
Therefore it seems to me we have no real reason except-well, what shall I say-the unregenerate political pride of the government. We have no reason except the prestige, fancied or otherwise, of the government; and of course that is a treasure which they must guard for themselves, and the nature of which the rest of us must leave to them to determine. But I just make the point again, that there is no urgency shown or suggested. I believe I am correct when I say that. If I am wrong, then I am ready to be shown that I am wrong; but I have no recollection of it.
I wish now to come to a few points which have been borne in on my mind, now that I have had a better opportunity to read the evidence. I believe it was the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) who the other evening raised the question as to how many at that time had read the evidence. I have taken all the time I could, consisting of a fair number of hours, but certainly I would not suggest I have mastered it yet. However, there are two or three things I wish to bring to the attention of the house, because they seem to deal with matters which are very relevant to what we are considering now. First of all there is the question which has been raised at some length in the house as to the manner in which the committee was conducted, and as to the whole background of its proceedings.

Combines Investigation Act
In that connection I wish to read one or two paragraphs from the remarks of the Minister of Justice, who was present during the sittings of the committee. And I shall read also a few remarks of Senator Lambert, a man known to all of us. I would read particularly with regard to the setting up of the committee and its relationship to the MacQuarrie committee report.
It seemed to me that at times the language used by the Minister of Justice was such as to indicate that it was the MacQuarrie report against the world, and that the only purpose for holding this committee at all was to permit people to come in-and here the language surprises me-to permit the people to come in and, as suggested at page 247, show that the report is "not in order." Then the next line speaks about the "validity of the report." I find those phrases-and I will read more of them-rather puzzling. It sounds like finding whether a motorcar is working, or whether an arithmetic question is right or wrong. This was a matter of opinion on a difficult and elusive subject. It seemed to me, from the words used by the minister, that they indicated an unwise attitude toward the proceedings of the committee.
Let me read at greater length from the minister's words as they are reported at page 246 of the proceedings:
Now, while there may be differences of opinion as to the competence of the MacQuarrie committee we have never had any other view from the time we appointed it but that it was a thoroughly competent committee, and that it has done a thoroughly complete job. It has taken a long time to do it and has gone very thoroughly into the whole matter. It did receive extensive briefs, and had long discussions. It did not curtail discussions in any way and it has done a job which if this committee were to do it would take from now until at least next summer-
That calculation, I thought, was a generous one. I do not know why the minister said ''summer" rather than "spring" or, for that matter, "autumn." , But that was the word he used. And he continues:
-and we thus could never contemplate any legislation in the main session of parliament.
Then in the next paragraph he referred to the officials of the combines investigation branch, and went on to say:
With the advantage of their views in the matter, we fully accepted the report.
That is the MacQuarrie report.
As some of the speakers who have just spoken in this committee have indicated, we, in the speech from the throne and in the debate in the House of Commons, committed ourselves to the acceptance of the report and to the introduction of legislation based upon it.
"Committed ourselves" he says, "to the acceptance of the report". I do not wish to

discuss the language used, but it seems to me that must have been a little discouraging to the committee, because it almost seemed to suggest that the door was pretty well banged, barred and bolted; that they might go through the motions of considering the report, and could have a lot of good fun out of it, but what they said could not amount to much.
I want to read again from page 247, where the minister said:
If, as Mr. Carroll said a moment ago, it appeared, during the course of the representations which they made as the hearings went on, that' they-
And I think "they" refers to the people who are opposed.
-were able to discharge the onus which is upon them of showing that the report is not in order, and made it appear there was some doubt about the validity of the report, then I think this committee would be warranted in digging into all the same matters the MacQuarrie committee had considered. But if we get from the representations that are made before us no argument that convinces us that there is anything wrong with the report I cannot see where we have any conscientious duty to go over the whole field that has already been covered very thoroughly by the MacQuarrie committee.
Now, that is a point of view. But I suggest again that the committee, when they heard that said, must have felt, "Well, what does all this amount to? Are we going through a lot of waste motion?" It is for that reason I want to go on to some further quotations. On the next page I read what Senator Lambert said. I know Senator Lambert is not a partisan of any kind; certainly I do not think he is a partisan for the Conservative party. I quote him as a man of independence, and I am interested in what he says. These are his words at page 248 of the proceedings:
I think it is very important in considering this matter now to associate the MacQuarrie report and the inquiry which we are making into the MacQuarrie report with the beginnings of this whole undertaking, which is the Curtis commission's prices inquiry. Now, the essential instruction in connection with the price inquiry by the Curtis commission, the essential instruction given by the prime minister of that day was that it should bring to bear upon the situation the whole moral effect of public opinion in this country-
You see that is exactly what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has been suggesting should be done, that we should have the benefit of public opinion in this country. And it is interesting to note that that is exactly what Senator Lambert thought should be done.
Then I go on from there to read:
-and that it was not intended to legislate particularly or to witch hunt for particular factors or situations.

We all agree with that. The only difference of opinion would be: When is a witch hunt not a witch hunt? Then I go on:
It was, rather, an investigation of the economic situation which brought about the suggested complaints about prices, and I submit now-
And this is the important part of it.
-as I did in the beginning here, that it is a mistake to set down a deadline or attempt to set down a deadline in connection with this inquiry. I do not suggest that this committee should undertake as wide and as detailed an inquiry as the Curtis commission did, but I do submit that the Mac-Quarrie report does not begin to approach, and I do not think their investigation has begun to approach, from the public point of view, and from the point of view of a democratic interest in this whole subject, the work that was done by the Curtis commission. The MacQuarrie report is a very well stated summary; someone has compared it to an obiter dictum of the supreme court on arguments, and I think that is what it is. There is not a word of evidence given in it.
And may I say that I think the authors of the MacQuarrie report were, perhaps by accident, put in a very unfortunate 'position. It seems now that the short time they were given in which to make this sort of preliminary or partial report put them in a position which perhaps it might have been wiser to have avoided. Perhaps they tried to avoid it, for all I know. I continue.
There is not a word of evidence given in it. There is a summary of arguments, pro and con, on this subject, but, to my way of thinking, it is something that invites me, as a member of parliament-
I was interested in reading that phrase because I suppose in my ignorance I had forgotten that it fits a senator. I continue:
-it is something that invites me, as a member of parliament, to reflect back to the people of this country public opinion, to which I am responsible, some degree of evidence to support the conclusions of the MacQuarrie report. That is the only point I should like to bring out.
I should like now to refer to another quarter, certainly one not associated with our party, and to quote the remarks of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry) as reported on page 249. We were delighted to hear the hon. member speak the other night. He has explained twice on questions of privilege that in spite of the views he holds, which are diametrically opposed to those of his party, apparently he is going to go along with them. He reminded me of a statement I saw in some work on the British parliament which referred to people who made speeches to satisfy their consciences and then voted to satisfy the whips. I think that is what the hon. member for St. James has done. The hon. member stated in the committee:
I am quite in sympathy with Senator Lambert's remarks and in order to expedite matters, since we have very little in the way of concrete evidence so far before us-
Combines Investigation Act
That is really an echo of what Senator Lambert said.
-and since it is a laborious task to elicit it from witnesses, I would like to know whether we could not get from official sources a definite set of figures that we would otherwise have to draw from every witness. If I may I would like to suggest some that could incorporate in the record, to which we could refer without asking witnesses for it. We should obtain information, for instance, as to the number of independent stores and independent businesses by provinces and by classification, let us say, in 1930, 1935, 1940 and 1950, and information as to the aggregate volume of business per classification. We could have the same information filed for chain and departmental stores, the volume of mail order business done in Canada in these different years, the number of bankruptcies since 1930, again by classification.
I shall not read the rest of that paragraph as I do not want to weary the house. I point out that here are two men who do not belong to this party making the same complaint we have made, that we are being asked to act on opinion. This committee was not allowed to have original facts but was asked to act on opinion. I consider that an unfortunate and indeed improper way to carry on the work of the committee. I think those in the committee and those in this house who criticized the manner in which that work was carried on were only too well justified in what they said.
Here again I should like to underline that this afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), when speaking on this matter and asking for further consideration, was merely reaching the only conclusion that could be reached from the remarks I have read of the minister, of Senator Lambert and of the hon. member for St. James. So much for that.
I wish now to turn to another aspect of the proceedings which I think are most important and to me very interesting. I think if I had been asked before any evidence was given what I thought would be the attitude of labour I would have been inclined to guess that they would be for the legislation. In the questions that were asked representatives of labour they were given every chance to say the opposite of what they did say. They were very cautious in their view. They wanted to do exactly what we want to have done, have the facts. They refused to jump to conclusions. I now propose to read briefly from the evidence given by Mr. L. E. Wismer, director of public relations and research, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, who appeared with Mr. Percy R. Bengough, the president of that organization. Mr. Wismer made an opening statement which I think was rather a model statement.

Combines Investigation Act I was very interested in it because it seemed to me that he indicated a course which I think might wisely be followed. He said:
Mr. Chairman, I think I could say, on behalf of president Bengough, that we listened with a great deal of interest to your debate this morning because to some extent it indicated the same difficulties in the minds of the members of the committee that we have, and that is whether or not we should be in favour of the interim report as to whether or not resale price maintenance is a bad thing or a good thing, and in saying that to you I think we should lay our cards on the table. We are speaking for the largest organized group of consumers in this country. There are at least 500,000 paid member of our organization and they have in many cases wives, families, relatives and so on, and they represent a very large proportion of the consuming public. It is important, in our point of view, that we should try to know, before we make up our minds, whether the practice of resale price maintenance grows up as a normal human protection in an economy, or whether it grows up as a predatory practice. In the case of working people, wage earners and their representatives, the combining of men in a trade union grows up from necessity; it grows up as a human practice to protect yourselves, not to hurt anybody, not as a predatory thing but as a protection to the people involved.
That seems to be a very sensible approach to the subject. They do not prejudge it. They want to know about it. They did not want to know the views of somebody else, they wanted to make up their own minds with the facts before them. They did not want just the facts provided by those who were against or those who were for, they wanted all the facts from the most responsible sources. I continue:
Now, we are not employers and we are not the representatives of employers, so we do not know if employers have the same problems or not.
You will observe that they are open-minded; they are ready to believe that they may have.
We know what our problems are like. We know we have to chase a continually rising price level with wages, and we have never yet found a way in which we can do it successfully.
Then I come to the next paragraph:
This is the point we tried to make in the brief. We are very sure in our own minds that over the years gradually trade unions were recognized in law as legitimate associations of people capable of making a bargain under law with their employers. If it is necessary that some sort of similar bargains should be made by the employers for the maintenance of their business and their interests, it also should be done under the law. In other words, we favour whatever price fixing has to be done, whether it be done by trade unions and their employers, by lawyers or doctors or any other association of people, and that it be done under the law. We think if you set up a law of that sort in a positive sense, with a consumers' price board where these arrangements can be considered and approved in whatever form they may necessarily take, that we would be moving in a direction which would uphold the principle of free economy.
He says that, but you will observe that he keeps an open mind and wants to know


the facts. Then he is examined by the minister, and I should like to read the following:
By Hon. Mr. Garson:
Q. Supposing a number of members of your union were working for a certain manufacturing plant, would you like the idea that the manufacturer should have the sole right to fix wages by himself?
A. Definitely not.
Q. At the present time he has the sole right to fix your prices, his own mark-up of them and the retailer's mark-up on them and all the rest. Do you like that?
A. Has he got that, Mr. Garson?
Q. Did you not know that?
A. What bludgeon does he use on the retailer to force him into that?
Q. Under resale price maintenance he does fix your price. I put this question to you, are you not as anxious to get out from under the manufacturers' power to fix the prices you have to pay with your wages as you are to have some say in the fixing of your own wages?
Mr. Bengough then interrupts and says:
It applies in some instances but there are, shall I say, many variations of that.
I want to digress for a moment because the minister undertook there to make a [DOT]categorical statement which I think is not warranted. He speaks of the manufacturer as having the sole right to fix prices. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) had some comments to make on that this afternoon which were absolutely to the point. The idea that the manufacturer sits in an ivory tower and fixes the prices that everyone is going to pay is just a shibboleth. It is something I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) knows does not exist, and he should not say it exists. What manufacturers have to do day by day and month by month is to use their best wits and efforts to find out what prices can be paid by the consumers and, as I said a moment ago, the idea that the manufacturer sits in an ivory tower and fixes prices exists only in theory. I am glad to know and to be able to quote the fact that Mr. Bengough stepped on that and qualified it. Then the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) questioned Mr. Bengough, or I should say Mr. Wismer. Apparently sometimes Mr. Bengough steps in when questions are asked of Mr. Wismer. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked the following:
Q. May I ask Mr. Wismer if he feels that this so-called practice of price maintenance is a detriment to or perhaps in harmony with public interest?
A. I think we can say this, in so far as the deal is made privately and enforced privately we would have to say no, but where it is a general practice I think we would have to have a lot more information.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that here is a sensible man who is not ready to make a lot of positive statements without information, which is what we are being asked to do in this legislation.


An hon. Member:: Go and do what I did; go and consult your merchant.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then there is this question by the hon. member for Eglinton, with reference to the draft bill:
Q. You will recall it purports to propose blanket prohibition on resale prices. Would you think that is a proper and desirable way of going about this matter, that we have blanket prohibition, or if we are going to have legislation on it should it be left to determine whether in the particular case the particular type of agreement is in the given circumstances harmful to the public interest or not?
Mr. Bengough makes what I think is a very sensible answer. He said, "It would have to be flexible". Then the hon. member for Eglinton said, "You wouldn't favour a general prohibition", and Mr. Bengough's answer was "no". I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and I only hope that possibly members of the house will pay some attention to it. Here are sensible men occupying positions of high trust and responsibility, representing literally hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens, and who I am bound to say seem to me to approach this thing in a very sensible manner. They say: Let us have a look at the facts, and they are very shy about answering a lot of general and doctrinaire questions which are based on certain assumptions that not only have not been proved but concerning which apparently the government does not desire time to be given so we may find out whether or not they are capable of proof.
I have gone into that point at some length because I think, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said, that this is a matter of great importance; and when you have a matter of great importance you also often have a matter of great urgency. No one has suggested there is any urgency here. We do have a matter of importance, one that we think may have a very profound effect. Why the sensible and practical suggestion that we should stop, look and listen cannot be adopted is beyond my understanding.
I want to go back to the evidence of one of the witnesses heard fairly early in the sittings of the committee. I think it was before what you might call closure or quasiclosure had been clamped down on the committee. I am going to read part of the evidence of Mr. Harris. It would appear that at that time the committee was a little more open to receiving suggestions. I think it was before those emanations, those telepathic waves, began to pass between the minister and the chairman of the committee. The chairman of the committee has told us there was no communication, but it may have been in the air, and at any rate we
Combines Investigation Act know that the clamp, closure, gag or whatever you may like to call it came down. Before it came down fully Mr. Harris gave some evidence at pages 257 and 258. He was speaking on behalf of the Canadian retail federation, and I want to read some statements he made.
Before doing so I should like to remind the house that a good many of these statements can be borne out by statements from responsible quarters and reported in the British pamphlet I read the other day. The minister will remember the name of it. In passing let me say there was a memorandum from another quarter which quoted at some length from a British white paper. I think that is some time later than the report from which I quoted the other day. All I can say is that in this British white paper they succeeded in ignoring some of the sober and serious statements made in the report after evidence had been given. If I may say so with respect to so august a body as the British government, it seemed to me they acted somewhat like our government. They were perfectly prepared to act on the basis of the things they liked to believe were facts.
For instance, I remember reading and Hansard will show that I read the other day a surprisingly strong statement, I thought, on behalf of the women purchasers. They spoke very strongly in favour of price maintenance saying they found it a great advantage to be able to know what they were getting, to have quality and not to have that most irritating feeling-and it is an irritating feeling -of buying something and then finding you could have bought it cheaper somewhere else. It is particularly irritating to the man with a name like mine, and I think the mental wear and tear that goes with that sort of thing is very serious indeed. I can understand these housewives.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is kind of hard on us Scots.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They want to be relieved from that form of nervous exhaustion. At any rate that was what they said, and in passing I could not help convey my considerable surprise that according to the quotation from the summary of the white paper the British government indicated that they did not think that was reasonable. They said it was not reasonable for women to believe that way, and therefore they could not have believed that way. I am not going to discuss the reasonableness of women. There are different views on that. Some people think women are more reasonable than other people believe them to be. I would say that as purchasers the opinion of women

Combines Investigation Act would rank very high; and when you have the consumers' league in Britain, a very responsible body, expressing the views they did they are not to be laughed off, not by a socialist government.
Having said that, I want to read some of the remarks made by Mr. Harris. I believe they are relevant. After all, as my leader said, parliament could not exist except on the assumption that you believe it is possible the things you are saying may have some effect upon the minds of some of the people opposite. You may go on and on being more and more discouraged, but if you came to the point where you believed it was impossible to change the opinion of members opposite it seems to me parliament would have to end. I am sure the minister would agree with that. Therefore I continue to make these arguments. My hopes are not high, but I comfort myself often with the remark made by a wise old friend. He was not talking about the opposition, but I believe his remarks could be applied to them. He said that when you break a stone with the hundredth tap of the hammer, that does not mean the first ninety-nine did nothing. We feel that we are somewhere around the ninetieth or ninety-first tap.
I should like to read from the evidence of Mr. Harris at page-


An hon. Member:: You need it, sir.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am all right as long as I am reading. The great problem is how long one has to go on to convince other people. Of course, the difficulty, and one of the tantalizing things here, is that we have a profound conviction we have convinced a lot of other people but they won't say so.


Alphonse Fournier: It is a secret.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Minister of Public Works, on the other hand, is a very different cup of tea, because last Saturday afternoon we had a fine debate in this chamber. At the end he did not say he was convinced, but his actions certainly indicated that he was.


Alphonse Fournier: On this bill?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, on public works, the thing you know most about. We came away from that debate feeling we had really accomplished something. I apologize for all these digressions, Mr. Speaker, but may I call it 6:15.
At 6:15 p.m. the house took recess.



COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, before I continue may I say that a suggestion has been made to me, from a source 1 respect, that after all the long hours we have had we might perhaps let the page boys off this evening. I hope 1 am not rocking the boat, Mr. Speaker. I have not done this kind of thing before, and maybe one should not interfere with the routine at all. I have raised this matter because these boys are not sis old as we are, and they have had quite a hard time. I think I am one of those who put them to the most work, and I would be ready to do my own chores this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the House of Commons would be able to function without the page boys. They are extremely important.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Now that you have referred to them in that way, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that they would much prefer to stay on. Perhaps I had better withdraw my request.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall be glad to take the matter up with the chief page and see if he thinks it is possible for us to get along without them. I thank the hon. member for having brought the matter to my attention.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I had hesitated to do so.
When we took recess I had been arguing, first of all, that there was no breathless haste here. I had suggested that there was involved no matter of life and death, except possibly to the people who believed they might be grievously injured by the passing of this measure; that nobody was going to suffer immediate damage by the delay in passing it and that, therefore, if there was any question of life and death the argument was for delay and not for immediate action.
I had then gone on to quote at some length from some of the labour men who came before the committee. I had pointed out that they seemed to me to be wise inasmuch as, in answer to questions, they had frequently said: We are not sure about that; there are views on both sides of the case; things must be flexible and not too rigid. I think I would be fair in saying that, by their attitude, they certainly had not indicated a desire to press on, regardless. I also had endeavoured, by reading quotations from the minister himself and from Mr. Lambert, to stress the argument that I thought more could have been done to allow the committee and, through

the committee, ourselves to judge this matter not by the opinions of other men, which in effect is what we are being asked to do, but by evidence we would get ourselves.
We in this party have often suggested in this house in other matters that we want access to the facts; and indeed, we have made some progress in that direction. We have stressed the faot that no responsible person is entitled to reach a conclusion without it being his own conclusion. My understanding of the law of trustees is that the one thing a trustee may not do is say that he did not exercise his own discretion. It may be an exceedingly bad discretion-and of course there are various views as to the discretion of the people in this chamber-but as I understand it, provided he exercises an honest discretion a trustee is fairly sure to come off scot-free if his actions are ever attacked. I suggest that we are trustees in the general sense of that term, although of course not in any legal sense; and I suggest that we are being prevented from doing what a trustee is called upon to do by law-and by that I mean a legal trustee-namely, to exercise his own discretion, which presupposes that he has the facts.
At 6.15 I was going on to read some comments made by a man who came on in the early days of the committee proceedings, and who represented some of the people whom we think should have been represented more widely and should not have been turned back as some of them were. I now propose to read briefly from some of the comments made by Mr. Harris. I read them with particular pleasure because they bear on some of the remarks which have been made categorically and, I think without warrant, suggesting that really a manufacturer just dwells in an ivory tower and he dictates his prices to the rest of the community.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Which, of course, is nonsense.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that so? I will give you some examples.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish it were possible to have the evidence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on this matter. I am sure it would be extremely interesting, and that we could get much further if only we had had him on the witness stand.
Mr. Harris had something to say about the matter. He was given an opportunity to express his views and, as reported at page 258 of the proceedings of the committee, he said:
Our brief brings out these points: first, that resale price maintenance is a stabilizing influence on our economy.
Combines Investigation Act
I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, that before the dinner recess I mentioned1 the case of the women purchasers in Britain who brought out this particular point, namely that it was a good thing, first of all, to have a guarantee as to quality and, second, not to have that agony which besets a certain kind of person when he finds that he has bought at one shop something he could have bought much more cheaply elsewhere. They evidently like the stability or the uniformity of price; although there one must throw in a caveat, too, because it was brought out in other cases that there could not be a rigid uniformity, and that sensible manufacturers do not try to pursue the man who, through the exigencies of his business and through the necessity for ready money, was selling perhaps below the stipulated price. Mr. Harris goes on to say:
Secondly, the public has protection in the brand name and an assurance of quality.
I think we all agree with that statement. He continues:
Thirdly, minimum resale prices tend to become maximum. Fourthly, price maintenance limits the retailers' margin of gross profit.
Later on Mr. Harris has something further to say about that question of limitation. He continues:
Our next point is:	Price maintenance does not
lead to high prices: and again, price maintenance tends to stabilize production.
Now, in opposition to the findings of the Mac-Quarrie commission, we submit first that price maintenance does not restrict competition unduly.
Secondly, we maintain that price maintenance tends to equalize prices across Canada: that is, in British Columbia and the maritime provinces-
He appears to include them in Canada, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why he should have any doubt about that.


John Lambert Gibson: The Railway Act does that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I continue:
They have always suffered from the disparity in freight rates.
He goes right on to the point made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson). I am glad to have him with me in this. I continue:
So with price maintained items the prices tend to be the same throughout Canada as a whole. That, in turn, helps to equalize the cost of living throughout the country.
We further submit-and I say this, gentlemen, with bated breath-that the consumer is not an expert in the value of merchandise, except in use, and the brand protects her and the price protects the brand.
Mr. Harris evidently knows his stuff. He knows who the purchaser really is. I go on:
We further believe that price maintenance helps retail advertising, or rather enables national advertising which means greater advertising economy and more economical distribution to the consumer.
We further submit-

Combines Investigation Act
And I commend this particularly to the Minister of Justice whose questions were asked in an entirely opposite sense:
We further submit that price maintenance does not mean fixed prices because they fluctuate up and down.
I had hoped to be able to give figures on that point, but I do not have them. I am sure they are available. I tried to get them today but I have not had time. We have had a rather busy day today. I hope to be able to get these figures. If we have the opportunity to discuss this on a future occasion I hope to be able to prove this, and I hope the opposite impression which does exist here may be done away with. I want to go on and read something further that Mr. Harris said on page 260. He was questioned by Mr. Boucher, who I think was one of the counsel who were good enough to come and assist the committee out of the goodness of their hearts:
Q. On page 1, point 1 of your brief, you say that resale price maintenance is a stabilizing factor in our economy. What does your group mean by the statement that resale price maintenance is a stabilizing factor?
A. We mean that prices, as you know, are always in movement; they are always fluctuating. Now, let us take an example of one town or one city, and one retailer in it who cuts the price. It may be that the bank is pressing him, or he may have some other reason; but the price structure immediately is broken in that particular community.
Where price maintenance does not exist there is a strong inclination for other retailers immediately to follow, and their prices will drop. Their prices cannot remain permanently down, because it would be unsound price cutting, and their businesses could not live at such a level of prices. But, because we are human and extremely competitively inclined, a great many retailers would undoubtedly cut their prices down to the level of the first retailer, and in that way the price structure of the community would be fluctuating up and down so that the consumer does not know what the proper value is.
I commend that again, Mr. Speaker. There is the statement of a man who is in close touch with marketing. I believe the description he has given is correct. I think when we try to speak inflexibly about these matters we immediately run into exceptions of this kind which he has just mentioned. Mr. Boucher questioned him again as follows:
Q. Would not, in many cases, resale price maintenance retain nominal profit margins to the detriment of profit volume?
That is a very important question, because it is suggested that resale price maintenance might have the effect of restricting consumption, thereby restricting production and thereby injuring the activity of manufacturers. This was the answer:
A. I would like to answer that a little more fully, if I may. I am very glad you asked that question. I checked with the buyers in our own business to get their views on price maintenance and some of them said "we are against it" and I said "why"

and they said "because it does not give us a sufficiently wide margin of profit." There is a very decided tendency, and it is generally recognized in the retail trade that on price-maintained items you do not get the same margin of gross profit that you do on those items which are not price maintained. It is the constant search of every buyer to find other than price maintained items to keep his maintained mark-up, as we call it, at a level which allows his department or his store to show a profit.
I was interested in that because, as far as it goes, it would appear to indicate the opposite of what is being suggested often without figures to back it up, namely that price-maintained articles are steadily and generally at a higher level than others. I have here some figures from a responsible source. They are a lot of drug items. I am not going to read them in great detail. It is a list of 216 altogether. Most of them, if not all, except 17 items of household drugs are price-maintained. I will read some of the increases. This is based on 1935-39. Bear in mind that this compares with the rise in the general cost of living of something like-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask the hon. member the source of the figures he is using?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the minister will have to take my word for it. It is a very responsible businessman who deals in this kind of thing. I am satisfied myself that it is reliable. If the minister finds figures that seem to disprove these I will have to back my champion. I do not mention people's names without their permission, and I did not ask permission to mention the name; therefore I shall just have to ask the minister to believe that I believe these.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He is a druggist, though?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He is in the drug business, yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Quite.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I propose to read perhaps half a dozen of these, which I am assured are price-protected: antiseptics and disinfectants are listed there as 117-6, that is, in relation to 100 on the 1935-39 base; baby products, 121; effervescent salts, 113; insecticides, 117-7; ointments and salves are higher, 119. Against these I have read there is a list of 17 household products which are without price protection, and in that case the figure is very much higher, 154-9. That seems to tie right into what Mr. Harris has said in the evidence that I have just read:
It is the constant search of every buyer to find other than price-maintained items to keep his maintained1 mark-up, as we call it, at a level which allows his department or his store to show a profit.
The minister gave some figures the other day, and I may say that I checked up and I found they were correct; at least they were confirmed by this same source.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You really did not suspect
they would be otherwise?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, we
all make mistakes. I have actually made mistakes myself. I was very surprised about these figures. I hoped to find there was some misunderstanding with regard to them; but with regard to those items I was assured it was not so, so I was glad to see these others which seemed to give a very different picture. I say I have been interested in Mr. Harris' evidence, because we have all been arguing that the people who should be listened to are the people who are in the business and who actually do buy and sell. We all recognize that they have a firm approach to the matter. They may have a limited view, but at any rate their views are based on that greatest of all realities, the red and black figures in a balance sheet. There is nothing in the world like that to give reality to a man's thinking.


Mr. Sluder:: About time to change the
record.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry
the hon. member is suffering as much pain as he evidently is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's
time has expired.


Mr. A. W. Sluarl (Charlolie):: Mr. Speaker, I realize this statement is made on many occasions, but I can assure the house that I had no intention at all of having anything to say in this debate, until it became evident that we would not finish tonight. So, as I sat on the committee and listened to the evidence produced there by those in support of resale price maintenance and those who were opposed to that practice, I felt that I might express my views for a few moments.
As I have said, groups representing manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers appeared before the committee. In many cases they had helping them present their case the very best that could be found from the legal profession. We had with us also those who represented labour, co-operatives, the federation of agriculture, and other groups. I believe if we had the figures they would show that those representatives spoke for millions of people in Canada.
For this reason I have been firmly convinced since the time the committee was set up that at least 85 per cent of the people of Canada are in favour of the legislation the government has now placed before the house. In summing up the evidence presented before the committee I am firmly convinced that the cost of trading or of retailing, whichever you wish to call it, varies considerably. One 94699-150
Combines Investigation Act store may carry a huge stock and operate an expensive delivery service. They may give credit terms that the small dealers are not able to give. The small dealer, the person who in my opinion will be benefited rather than hurt by this legislation, concentrates on the quick-selling lines, and he trades in a cash and carry fashion.
In other words, one consumer purchases over the telephone while the other takes a shopping basket and walks a long distance to save a few dimes here or twenty-five cents there or fifty cents somewhere else. But resale price maintenance provides exactly the same profit to both merchants, regardless of this fact. And although different services are provided, the people who do not wish to pay for this de luxe service are obliged to do so under the practices of resale price maintenance.


Mr. Sinclair:: That is true.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I noted tonight
before six o'clock that when the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) was speaking he mentioned that he had not been able to read all the evidence produced before the combines committee, and that he did not feel he was in a position to make up his mind as to what he should do in this regard until he had found time to read those proceedings. When he said that I thought to myself that when the house is in session and there are at the same time ten or twelve committees sitting, the evidence before some of which may be very long, he is a very fine parliamentarian indeed who reads all that evidence before deciding how he can vote.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not say
I was going to read it all.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I thought from the hon. member's statement that he was expecting to read it all before he would know how to act in connection with this legislation. I am saying that any member who decides that he must read all the evidence taken before committees of the house, and all the briefs presented before them, and that he must absorb all of it before he can make up his mind as to how he will vote, will be a long time making that decision.
Another point that was noticeable in the remarks of the hon. member was that he singled out statements in different parts of the evidence. Sometimes that is very confusing, because reading only part of a statement may give the wrong impression. If the hon. member had read the whole statement it would have given a different impression altogether. One leaves a wrong impression when he quotes only a short statement.

Combines Investigation Act
As an example I would refer to a witness who appeared before the committee on behalf of the Ontario hardware dealers. I believe hon. members will agree that he was a brilliant witness, and that he gave evidence in support of resale price maintenance. However, toward the end of his testimony he was asked why the T. Eaton Company support this legislation. After making two or three different answers he came out with the statement that he thought perhaps the T. Eaton Company would rather run their own business than have someone else run it for them. In my opinion that is the very thing resale price maintenance is doing in this country today. It is running the businesses of people who would like to run their own business.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Let me say that I have received from my county two letters asking me not to support this legislation. One of those letters came from a hardware dealer and the other came from a druggist. Those were the only two I received. On the other hand I have received several asking me to support the legislation. I realize that what I am saying is going on record, and that the people down there will know exactly the interest that was taken, so far as this legislation is concerned, from the standpoint of the retailer.
There were long discussions in the committee with regard to what are known as loss leaders. If one had time to read all the evidence he would find that every witness who appeared before the committee representing manufacturers, wholesalers or retailers was asked for his definition of a loss leader.


An hon. Member:: The leader of the opposition.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: We are just as far away from the definition today as we were the day the committee was set up. One cannot find two people who are of the same opinion. Not more than one or two would voice any opinion at all.


Mr. Balcom:: Has the hon. member a definition of loss leader?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am glad the hon. member asked that, because I have. A loss leader is the finest thing that was ever put on sale in any branch of retail business, for the benefit of the consumer. That is my definition of it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In the United States or in Canada?
[Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) .J


Andrew Wesley Stuart: In the final analysis the consumer reaps the benefit. He gets the bargain, and there are very few in the world today.
I believe resale price maintenance is a procedure obviously designed to prevent and which does prevent the lowering of prices. There is no question in my mind about that. The very words that describe the practice, "resale price maintenance", convince me that it is not for the benefit of the consumer. It is certainly for the benefit of the retailer or the wholesaler, whoever wishes to apply it. The consumer can never derive any benefit from it.
When we look back over the record to the time the trouble started in Korea we must all realize, although some may not admit it, that big business in this country began to stockpile. There is no question about that. They were of the opinion that if a war broke out many things would be in short supply and perhaps impossible to get at all. I could name plenty in business, if I wanted to, who did some stockpiling. But I will say they are the fellows who are worrying today. It is not the small merchant the opposition is worrying about; it is the big fellow who has stockpiled, and he is scared blue for fear this legislation may force him to take a loss. The little guy has not these stockpiles; it is the big guy who has them. I know one gentleman who sits in this house who is in business in-a rather big way and he told me that he had 150 refrigerators in his basement. It is not the fellow with the pound of coffee, a few pounds of tea and some lard and sugar who is worrying; the fellow who is doing the worrying is the big fellow, and he is the man who is putting the pressure on so far as this legislation is concerned. It is not the little fellow in the corner store on whom so much emphasis has been placed in this debate.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke yesterday, and I believe if he had kept on a little longer he would have convinced himself that this legislation was good legislation. I say that in all sincerity. One thing he mentioned, in fact he emphasized it to some extent, was the wonderful service the drug stores of this country are giving to the public today. I see some of my druggist friends in the house. I do not think one member in this house will argue with that statement. Many drug stores in this city have little trucks and cars and will deliver anything you want from a nipple for a baby's bottle-


An hon. Member:: Coca-cola.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: If people want to pay for that service, I do not quarrel with

them. They have a perfect right to pay for that if they want to. But the man with a small salary may not want to pay for such service and he should not be forced to. That is exactly whait resale price maintenance does. I should like to give just one more example. Some hon. members are able to stay at the Chateau Laurier hotel while others are not. If an hon. member staying there decides tomorrow morning that he wants to send out some laundry, he calls a bell boy, it is picked up and returned that night. But he pays about 30 cents a shirt for that service.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Twenty-eight cents.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: But there are some of us poor fellows who pack our laundry and take it up the street and leave it at a laundry, and we get our shirts done for two for a quarter. I do not quarrel with those who want to pay for the service given at the Chateau, but if there are others who do not want to pay for that kind of service they should not be obliged or forced to.
You could talk here for the next six months, and you could not convince me that resale price maintenance is good for the little man, that it is good for the consumers of this country. I believe most people are of the same opinion as myself. We should not forget the housewife whose husband is perhaps earning only a small income. We should not deny her the privilege of taking her shopping basket and buying the things for which she is willing to pay cash and carry them home. She does not want all this de luxe service that has been mentioned time after time. She does not want to pay for that; she is willing to carry her own purchases. But under this system she would not be able to do that. She does not want to use and pay for all that service, but that is exactly what resale price maintenance will force her to do.
There is one other thing	I	should	like	torefer to briefly. If I may	I	should	like	toplace on the record a brief	that was	sent	tothe committee, which I feel	tells the story
much better than anything I have been able to read or any explanation I could ever hope to make. I think most hon. members will agree that when a manufacturer sets the price the retailer becomes his agent. There might be some quarrel with that statement, but everyone knows the position of the automobile dealer. He is not considered to be a retailer; he is the agent of General Motors or Ford Motor Company. When you have resale price maintenance you have the same thing applying to the whole retail trade. The retailers are not retailers any more; they are agents of the manufacturer. There is no
94699-150J
Combines Investigation Act incentive for them to try to buy a little cheaper for the consumers. They are simply the agents of the wholesaler or manufacturer. There is no other description for them. The price is set for them and there is no encouragement to buy an article that they can sell a little cheaper. That situation applies anywhere that resale price maintenance is adopted.
I believe that the retailers in Canada are good citizens and are doing a job for the community. I believe the retailers of Charlotte county are trying to buy the best goods obtainable at the lowest price. In order to do that the retailer shops around among the manufacturers to get the best goods he can at the cheapest price possible. He tries to improve the efficiency of his shop, and to bring the best goods to his friends at the lowest price.
That type of retailer is the purchasing agent of the consumer. Is a retailer to be a selling agent for the manufacturer, selling at a price fixed by the manufacturer, or is he to be the purchasing agent of the consumer, buying the best goods obtainable and selling them to the consumer and his friends at the lowest possible price? Who is the better merchant? I leave it to the members to judge.
In substantiation of what I have said I should like to read a brief which I believe is indicative of the attitude of retailers from Newfoundland to British Columbia. This brief is addressed to James Sinclair, Esquire, M.P., chairman, special committee on resale price maintenance, and it comes from Woodward Stores Limited of Vancouver, B.C. This is not a brief from New Brunswick, it is one from British Columbia that I have chosen.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do you know how big Woodward stores are?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I know how big they were at one time.


Mr. Sinnott:: We know how small you are.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: One of the hon. members from British Columbia told me his mother had told him she could remember when the proprietor swept out the store himself. This brief is-


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no point of order.


William Joseph Browne: I have a point of order.

Combines Investigation Act


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: Give him a chance.


William Joseph Browne: I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is quoting from a brief which was submitted to the chairman of the committee and I should like to ask if that brief was published.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking a question of the hon. member who has the floor?


William Joseph Browne: I was asking the hon. member if it is published in the report and, if so, at what page I can find it.


James Sinclair: Apparently the hon. member has not bothered to read the proceedings of the committee. This brief was submitted to the chairman of the committee, and, like every other brief submitted to the chairman, was printed in the proceedings of the committee and is a matter of public record.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All the hon. member is asking for is the page number.


James Sinclair: It is in the last or the second last of the day's proceedings.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Page 818.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there another point of order?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can we not
even ask questions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Merry Christmas.


James Sinclair: You could not find a royal
commission report in your own province, so how can you find anything else?


William Joseph Browne: I suggest the hon. member address the chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members apparently have decided the point amongst themselves.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: If I may continue now, I should like to read from the brief of the Woodward organization, to be found at page 818 of the proceedings of the committee. It reads as follows:
For many years the Woodward organization has sought by every means in its power so to conduct its business that it can offer the best merchandise to customers at the lowest possible prices. This we believe to be the major purpose of the merchandising profession. Price maintenance however has made it impossible for the merchant to reduce his prices below an arbitrarily fixed minimum, and has nullified his constant search for new techniques which will enable him to sell for less. We wish therefore wholeheartedly to endorse the recommendation of the MacQuarrie committee against resale price maintenance.

I want hon. members to listen to this part carefully.
Experience has taught us that business interests are best served by placing first and foremost the interests of the public.
Truer words were never spoken.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Every little retailer said the same.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It continues:
It is possible that certain manufacturers may benefit by their ability to command a predetermined price for their product, whatever its quality may be. It is possible that certain retailers may derive advantage from the restriction of effective competition. But it is also sure that the consumer is frequently denied savings he might have enjoyed through the efficiency which only competition can promote.	-
True again, Mr. Speaker.
The use of competitive methods in bringing merchandise to the public is a powerful weapon against inflation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Not until I am through. These people would really have us worrying about the introduction of this bill.


James Sinclair: He has spent two and a half hours already boring us.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I just wanted to ask a question. If the hon. member does not want to answer it he does not have to.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The Progressive Conservative group has emphasized the fact that the government is doing nothing to fight inflation, but they have fought tooth and nail the very first measure introduced that might help the situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does Eaton's support the same views as Woodward's?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It continues:
Many forms of retail outlet are to be found in Canada. There are stores where customers serve themselves in order to save, and stores where they may receive exclusive individual attention.
Our drug stores are an example.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Or Eaton's or Woodward's.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It continues:
There are stores where they may order by telephone, have delivery, purchase at the same price for credit as for cash, and there are stores where none of these advantages are offered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Like Eaton's and Woodward's.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Continuing:
Is it reasonable to compel them all, irrespective of the amount of service they offer and irrespective of their widely different operating costs, to sell their product at the same price-and that price the highest the market will bear?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Like Eaton's and Woodward's.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I do not believe I interrupted the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) when he spoke, and he spoke for over two hours. I have not said a word yet in this debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is just being tiresome. Don't pay any attention.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is only fair that the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) should be allowed to continue.


James Sinclair: These are not matters we learned at either of his alma maters; I can assure you of that.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It goes on:
The whole of our Canadian economy is geared to a free enterprise system.
That must sound good to the people to the left.
It is the basis of our political creed.
Again it sounds great.
The man in the street has faith in it. He believes that sooner or later unfettered competition and the laws of supply and demand will defeat the bogey of inflation. The freezing of competitive selling is the very antithesis of free enterprise. For these reasons we oppose and have opposed it in principle and practice for sixty years. We strive to sell merchandise in an efficient manner and at minimum margins consistent with good business. This too is the aim of many manufacturers with whom we do business and who have built up for their products an enviable reputation respected by retailers and consumers alike. It is no more to the interest of the retailer than of the manufacturer to sell acceptable merchandise unprofitably. In free competition with other lines a product invariably finds its own level, and the manufacturer who has earned a good name will continue to enjoy the patronage of the consuming public.
I believe that proves he will receive that patronage whether or not what he sells is price-maintained.


James Sinclair: That is why the Tories have had no patronage for the last twenty years, because they have not a good name.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I continue:
Many products that have no resale price set by their manufacturers have sold successfully and profitably over a long period. There is no reason why the merchandise sold at maintained prices today-


Mr. Casselman:: The first smile in four days.


Mr. Riley:: Be careful, Jimmy; the leader
of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is leering at you.


George Alexander Drew: I am enjoying it.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It reads:
There is no reason why the merchandise sold at maintained prices today would not enjoy a similar success when freed from resale restrictions. Much of our merchandise is not price controlled; yet the practice is growing and as it grows, so surely is the stimulus of competition eliminated. So too grows the prevalence of excessive trade-in allowances, of premiums and prizes offered with major
Combines Investigation Act purchases to present an illusion of extra value. Sound business ethics demand that savings effected by competent merchandising be passed directly to the public.
That is the brief that was presented by Woodward Stores Limited of British Columbia. I am informed by a British Columbia member that the manager of that store today at one time swept the floors of a store that belonged to somebody else. That is the way they have built up the enormous business they have today, which I understand is one of the biggest retail outlets in British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One of the biggest.


James Sinclair: This is a free enterpriser speaking, and not a socialist.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: They have built up that business not as selling agents for manufacturers but as purchasing agents for consumers. They have done so in spite of pressure that may have been brought to bear on them by manufacturers in central Canada, and there has been plenty of it. This is the creed of a real Canadian, a free enterpriser, and Canada is still a place for many of them.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a brief word or two with respect to the subamendment moved this afternoon. When I spoke on the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 36 on Tuesday last I gave the reasons why I was convinced that the legislation proposed was necessary and good legislation. At the same time I cautioned the government that they would have to be on their guard against predatory price cutting by large concerns, especially if in the future we get back into a buyers' market when prices may become something like chaotic. I also stated at that time that I believed more settled conditions throughout the country would doubtless bring us into a period that could be called a buyers' market.
I also stated my conviction that everything possible ought to be done to protect small retailers throughout the country. I said if I were convinced that the bill would endanger the position of the small retailers I would do my very best to have it held over or to defeat it. I should like to say something tonight by way of extension of my remarks in connection with these two phases of the problem before us.
When I read the amendment that was moved by the charming lady member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), I saw in it some things that interested me a great deal. I believe it contains a suggestion which parallels to some extent what we tried to do in the province of Alberta about 1936,
2368	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act when our Social Credit party was successful in forming a government in that province. We found, of course, the general economy in a depressed state. There was a condition of stagnation, and prices were chaotic. For several years prior to the time we took over in 1935 that had been the condition; but in 1936 we did make an effort to do something about what was then called the loss-leader practice. That was one of the means by which the price situation was thrown into a chaotic state. We decided that one of the best ways of dealing with the problem was to get the retail merchants throughout the province to unite in asking the department of trade and industry to establish what later became known as retail codes.
These codes were drafted with the help of the retail merchants and under the guidance of the department of trade and industry. Certain boards were set up for the purpose of assisting retailers throughout the province to establish once more some orderly system of pricing. In a large measure it was successful, right up until the time goods became scarce after the outbreak of war. The retailers and government board did succeed in fairly well eliminating from the whole province of Alberta the loss-leader practice, and it was done in the democratic manner which I think is envisaged in the subamendment which the member for Hamilton West has moved.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, it could be said with truth that what we did in Alberta was merely a horizontal price regulation; that is, it dealt only with retail prices through all the retail outlets. But I see no reason why the principle cannot be applied in a vertical fashion as well, from the manufacturer to the wholesaler and the retailer. I know, from our experience in Alberta during the thirties, that any time the public felt they should be heard, and quite rightly so, it was the policy of the board under the department of trade $nd industry to listen to their protests. As a result of some of the conferences that were held, price adjustments were agreed to; but it was more a matter of bringing the retailers and consumers together and helping them reach some sort of democratic agreement. It worked out, I thought, extremely well, until it became unnecessary to use it because loss leaders did disappear from trade practice in this country with the outbreak of war or shortly afterward.
In a measure the same principle is being applied today in our province with respect to the pricing of milk, and through the public utilities commission the pricing of gas. The


gas companies do not just set prices anywhere they wish. The price has to be set after very careful consultation with the board of public utilities commissioners. The same thing is true with respect to rents. We have in the province of Alberta a very interesting board that was appointed as a result of the abolition of rent controls in Canada. This board attempts to bring the tenant and landlord together to help them reach an agreement on the amount of rental that shall be charged. I am told that of all the cases that have come before that board, over 90 per cent are concluded by way of agreement between the two parties, without any dictation by the board. In the other small percentage the board listens to both sides very carefully, and if the parties cannot reach an agreement the board sets a rental which is fair. We think that is the democratic way of proceeding. It has succeeded very well in those fields. I see in the amendment moved by the member for Hamilton West the same principle. I do not see why it could not be applied in an orderly fashion throughout Canada.
This afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) produced some evidence to the effect that perhaps such an arrangement as I have suggested might not be intra vires of the federal government. It seems to me that, through agreement with the provinces, some sort of permissive legislation could be passed by this parliament which would govern interprovincial arrangements and trade agreements, and that under that permissive legislation passed by this house provincial legislation could be passed which would set up provincial boards or commissions to deal with matters that are entirely provincial in their character. I believe something of the sort was suggested in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), if I interpret it correctly. But in connection with this subamendment, Mr. Speaker, I see in it a proposal that in my judgment is reasonable and quite sound. It would bring about orderly pricing in times of depressed trade conditions in the country. I would urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the government to give careful consideration to that proposal as a means of ensuring fair treatment to all our small merchants throughout Canada, and of preventing chaotic price cutting or what the Minister of Justice described the other day as predatory price cutting. The other day I said I feared that with the coming of more settled world conditions we could easily slide into a period of depression or at least business recession. It is during periods of recession that we have these difficulties. I suggest in all seriousness that the minister take this

matter under careful consideration, because 1 think he is going to need something to protect merchants when this bill is passed,.
I welcome the opportunity of expressing an opinion on this amendment, because it contains the very things which we have been trying to practise in a provincial way within the province of Alberta. Because I believe there is merit in the suggestion I propose to support the amendment. If that does not pass, then of course I still propose to vote for the bill.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Will the member for Peace River (Mr. Low) permit a question? When he mentioned gas he was referring to natural gas, I assume, and not gasoline?


Solon Earl Low: Yes. I am sorry I did not make that clear. It is natural gas, not gasoline.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I asked that question, Mr. Speaker, because it is exactly the same sort of regulation which controls the sale of natural and manufactured gas in Toronto through the Consumers Gas Company.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, because we looked upon it as a public utility. I think it has been declared as such practically everywhere, and as a public utility it becomes subject to regulation of the kind I suggested.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is it working out well in Alberta?


Solon Earl Low: Yes; very well.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: What you have proposed differs fundamentally from the fair price idea in the United States, does it not?


Solon Earl Low: I am afraid that I am not too well acquainted with the fair price arrangements in the United States, I must confess. But whatever the fair price arrangement may be there, I read into the subamendment pretty much the thing we have today in the province of Alberta, and it has worked out fairly successfully as far as it has been applied.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I think we should all recognize that this is a big subject, and one that is not at all new. I have here a book which I found in the library entitled "Price Control under Fair Trade Legislation in the United States". It was published in 1939. It deals with the practices then prevailing-that was twelve years ago-in 41 of the 48 states of the United States. It also refers to the fact that this practice of maintaining prices has been in vogue in Great Britain and in Germany since the last century, and had been introduced in the United States about the beginning of this
Combines Investigation Act century. Although we hear of it perhaps for the first time, it is a well-established practice and hon. members should really have time to study it in order to make up their minds properly upon so vast and comprehensive a subject.
I listened with great interest, as well as I could, to the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart); because, Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult to hear down at this end of the chamber owing to the poor acoustics, for which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is responsible, because he has not introduced the system which was approved last session.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a Victorian system.


William Joseph Browne: The Minister of Public Works cannot even hear me across the floor. I am doing my best to make him hear. I could not hear all that the hon. member for Charlotte said. I heard his beginning, however, in which he stated that there had been large groups represented before the committee on combines legislation, and that he believed about 85 per cent of the people of Canada were represented there. Does he for a moment imagine that all those people were absolutely unanimously behind this project? How can he think that?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I certainly did not say that 85 per cent of the people were represented there. What I did say was that 85 per cent of the people of this country were supporting the legislation that is before the house at the present time. That is exactly what I said.


William Joseph Browne: I probably misquoted the hon. gentleman, but not intentionally. I have here a note of what he said. He said 85 per cent of the people at least were in favour of that legislation. I think he will admit that.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I said "the people of Canada".


William Joseph Browne: I know the hon. gentleman has not had the opportunity of taking a Gallup poll. He has not had any better opportunity of testing the opinions of the people of this country than we have had.


Mr. Ward:: Have you?


William Joseph Browne: No. But I
say he has had no better opportunity than we have had, and he has no greater knowledge than we have. We are just as much interested in getting the support of 85 per cent of the people as are those on the other side of the house. We do not think what he has stated represents the fact or even approaches the fact. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that

Combines Investigation Act at this busy season of the year it is extremely difficult for people to give consideration to a question like this, when we who are here sitting in the house have found it so difficult. Half the members are away. I think the hon. member for Coast-Gapilano cast a reflection or an aspersion on some of the members who had not read the proceedings. The hon. member for Charlotte pointed: out, however, that it was impossible for members to read the various reports of the committees, .with half a dozen sitting at the one time, all of them with voluminous documentary evidence. I certainly agree with him. What he said is perfectly true.


James Garfield Gardiner: Have you no knowledge other than what you read?


George Alexander Drew: It is a great advantage to have read something.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
know whether the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is serious in asking that question. He certainly does not indicate a high appreciation of any knowledge or ability that I might possess.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: I will not suggest that he is out of order in saying that because I confess to having little knowledge of this subject, but I am anxious to find out; and between this date and the 27th I can certainly promise the minister that I am going to make an attempt to read as much of the evidence as possible. I do not know whether it can be called evidence. Most of it consists of briefs such as that read by the hon. member for Charlotte; but what is contained in that huge book, running to 872 pages, I am going to attempt to read. I hope to read as much of that as I can in the next week before December 27, when we resume.


James Garfield Gardiner: A good deal of it will be interested pleading.


William Joseph Browne: I have read some of it already and I think it is interesting. I think it is a most interesting study. I endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry) that we should all read it. He commended it to us, and I suggest that we read it. I suggest that we try to get an extra copy, and give it to our wives to read during the Christmas season.


Mr. Rinfret:: As a Christmas present.


William Joseph Browne: It might be appreciated. The hon. member for Charlotte is an extremely pleasing speaker. He certainly pleased all the members on his side of the house. He is a convincing speaker; I

will grant that much. He talks plausibly. He spoke about the freedom of the housewife to take her shopping basket and go around to the stores saving a few cents here and a few cents there; he mentioned ten cents here and ten cents there. That is what he spoke about. He must be aware of the fact that generally when the lady goes out with her shopping basket it is to get groceries; and those are the items which are least affected by this particular subject of resale price maintenance. I do not know what causes the hilarity of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). He sometimes laughs without reason.


An hon. Member:: Just nervousness.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
know why he is laughing at the present time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not mind telling my hon. hon. friend. It is too good to keep to myself.


William Joseph Browne: What is it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) inferred from your remarks that you were suggesting that the ladies did not wear clothes because they shopped only for groceries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Shame.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The government is advocating nudism laws now.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Are you against it?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am opposed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the government stay in power very long, the ladies will not be able to buy clothes. Prices will be too high.


William Joseph Browne: I think what the hon. gentleman meant was that when the ladies went out with a shopping basket it was to get groceries.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I meant exactly what I said. A lady could go out with a shopping basket without buying groceries. She could be buying clothing, she could be buying drugs. I did not mention groceries. You are not going to put those words into my mouth. You look the record over tomorrow and you will find that groceries were not mentioned.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member did not mention that word.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I did not insinuate that; why did you?


William Joseph Browne: That is, of course, the usual thing for a lady to buy when she goes out with a shopping basket.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: She could buy lots of other things such as clothing or drugs.


William Joseph Browne: Yes. I have as much knowledge of what a woman uses a shopping basket for as you have.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He takes it for smuggling.


George Harris Hees: He takes it across the bridge.


William Joseph Browne: I therefore suggest that when the lady of the house takes up her shopping basket, it is to buy groceries; and it has been stated that only 1 per cent of the lines in the grocery stores are covered by resale price maintenance.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I did not suggest that she bought groceries. There is nothing in any remark I made that would suggest that she would be buying groceries. I admit that there are few groceries themselves which are covered by resale price maintenance. I spoke of her shopping basket. My wife does not go out to buy groceries only when she takes her shopping basket. She buys clothes. She has to have them. I suppose others do the same. There is not a word about buying groceries.


William Joseph Browne: I will come to that matter in a moment, but I am dealing with groceries at the present time because that is something she has to get almost every day. Every housewife throughout the country has to get groceries almost every day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Joseph Browne: If you go
into an A. & P. store you will see them there with huge baskets of groceries. Some people can arrange to buy a whole week's groceries at the one time, but certainly the commonest thing you will see is a lady bringing in her shopping basket for groceries. Let us say for argument's sake that she is going to buy other things. The hon. gentleman is very confident in his argument.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: What are you in
yours?


William Joseph Browne: And he
thinks so confidently of his. One would think that there is no other side to the thing at all.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: We have listened
to the other side for about two weeks.


An hon. Member:: We have not heard any
other side yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


William Joseph Browne: The hon.
gentleman may not be in the mood to hear the other side, but I am going to give an
Combines Investigation Act illustration that was brought to my attention yesterday. We will suppose that the housewife is not going out for groceries. She is going out to do her Christmas shopping.


An hon. Member:: To get a bottle of
aspirin.


William Joseph Browne: And she
is going to get presents. She is going to get a scarf for one son and a pair of gloves for another. This happened yesterday right here in Ottawa. It is an absolute fact. I went into a shop yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't you usually recite
facts?


William Joseph Browne: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: Neither
does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because the hon. member usually deals with theories, but we speak-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member fell into
his own trap and he can't get out of it.


William Joseph Browne: No, I did
not fall into any trap; I am perfectly aware of what I am talking about. There are other things in the world besides facts. There are ideas too, you know. Yesterday I went out to do my Christmas shopping and I looked at some gloves.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You were not away long.


William Joseph Browne: No, I had
to do the business quickly and get back to the house. I looked at men's scarves, and I saw one there with a brand name on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member should
do his shopping in Newfoundland.


William Joseph Browne: There was
a well known name on the scarf and the price marked on it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suppose you did yours in
Winnipeg.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope to be there tomorrow.


William Joseph Browne: I know this scarf is the same price across the country from St. John's to Vancouver, and anyone else who knows this subject of resale price maintenance knows that as a standard brand it is being sold at the same price from St. John's to Vancouver, so I bought it. Then I went to look at some gloves, and I was shown a pair of gloves for $4.25, but on Saturday last I saw the same gloves in another part of Ottawa for $3.90.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You were late.
2372	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act


William Joseph Browne: No, I was
not late at all. This is a serious point, Mr. Speaker. They sold in one store for $4.25 and in another store for $3.90.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is free enterprise.


William Joseph Browne: The Minister of Justice will say if you shop around you will be able to get a cheaper pair; but do you not see that the people who do not know the store that is selling them cheaper have to pay the higher price in this other store, and it works both ways. You might pay a higher price in one store and a lower price in the other. Is that not the common experience all the way through, and that our wives sometimes get taken in when they pay too much in one store?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let the hon. member speak of his own wife.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


William Joseph Browne: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is the hon. member's solution to that to pass a law compelling them to charge the higher price?


George Harris Hees: The lower price.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The lower price, obviously.


George Harris Hees: We are for the consumer.


William Joseph Browne: What I am saying is that they have no fixed price on the article and the people in the outlying parts, especially in isolated communities where there is no competition, can put up the price and nobody knows the difference; whereas with the standard price you can pick up the paper today and you see certain brands of scarves, shirts, socks and ties each with its fixed price. I was studying that yesterday in the newspapers, and I found it was the same price in each store in Ottawa. That saves a lot of time for busy men such as members of the House of Commons. They have not time to go around with shopping baskets to save ten cents here and ten cents there. Who wants to spend all his time going around looking for bargains of ten cents here and ten cents there? The hon. member for Charlotte may be looking for bargains.


George Harris Hees: He gets them over the river.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I never got a judge's salary.


William Joseph Browne: No; you do
not have to when you can save otherwise.


George Harris Hees: Over the river, Wes.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is pretty cheap.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Charlotte approves of the evidence given by a hardware merchant or a hardware expert who was asked why the T. Eaton Company did not favour resale price maintenance, and he said: "Because they want to run the business themselves".


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Correct.


William Joseph Browne: Later on during his talk he read us a letter which had been addressed by a store in British Columbia to the chairman of this committee. I intend to make a reference to that in a moment, but first of all I will deal with the largest retail store in Canada which itself does over 7 per cent of the retail business. One store does over 7 per cent of the retail business in Canada. It wants to run its business itself, and I do not suppose it would mind if it ruined the businesses of other people.
The hon. gentleman must be reasonable. He must admit that if this resale price maintenance policy is abolished, and it is taken off these lines, there will be nothing to prevent the huge departmental stores advertising the day after this bill becomes law that they will sell articles which were formerly priced at $5 for $3.95, $3.50, $3, or any other price.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Who would benefit by that?


William Joseph Browne: In order to attract people to the store.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Who would benefit by the lower prices?


William Joseph Browne: I will answer the hon. gentleman if he will give me time. The persons who would go there would benefit if they bought only that particular item.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That would be the person with the shopping basket.


William Joseph Browne: I am going to deal with the question of the loss leader which the hon. gentleman for Charlotte maintained was such a wonderful thing for the people of Canada. I am going to deal with that in a moment. The hon. gentleman is not in accord with the Minister of Justice, and he is certainly very far away from-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: We are never
whipped into line on this side of the house. We all have our own opinions.


William Joseph Browne: It has not
been shown during this debate.


George Harris Hees: That is a good one.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We saw that going on over there yesterday.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. gentleman says they do not want any interference, but the hon. gentleman was very superficial in his summing up of Eaton's attitude, because there is a great deal of interference with businesses of every kind; all sorts of controls have been passed in this house during the past number of years. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) pointed out today, the world is a long way removed from the days of laissez-faire. It looks as if it is the intention of the government to go back to the days of unfettered and unbridled competition, when we shall have price wars such as they had the other day down in New York, as I mentioned last night when somebody interrupted me and said: "You are absolutely wrong." I have not heard that voice explain since where I was wrong in any particular in my reference to it. There are all sorts of regulations covering every-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: May I ask a question?


William Joseph Browne: You may ask
a dozen if you like.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: After the price war was over, Macy's were still in business and the customers got the break. Do you criticize that?


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) applauds the interjection. The customers did get the break if they bought only the particular loss-leader items. What is the purpose of a loss leader? The hon. gentleman surely-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You did not answer the question.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Charlotte could not give the regular definition; he prepared a definition of the loss leader, and I tried to take it down. "A loss leader is the finest thing ever put into effect in Canada" or words to that effect.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: "For the benefit of the consumer."


William Joseph Browne: "The finest thing ever put into effect; a bargain."


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Just a minute now; on a question of privilege. I said "for the benefit of the consumer."


Edmund Davie Fulton: You said "The loss leader is the finest thing ever put into effect in Canada."


Andrew Wesley Stuart: For the consumer.
Combines Investigation Act


William Joseph Browne: He said "for the consumer"; I will concede that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Don't be jealous.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


William Joseph Browne: After the hon. member for Coast-Capilano spoke so long, I think we ought to be allowed to have as much time as he had. Now, listen to what the MacQuarrie report says about the loss leader, and compare it with what was said by the hon. member for Charlotte. The MacQuarrie report says:
The second practice, called the loss-leader device, is an aggressive weapon-
Now, sit down and listen to it. This is important.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I cannot sit here all night.


William Joseph Browne: Don't run
away. Sit down and take it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This is a bear-garden.


William Joseph Browne: I did not
interrupt the hon. member, except to ask the page in the report from which he was reading. I am prepared to answer questions any time I am given a chance to answer them. The MacQuarrie report says:
The second practice, called the loss leader device, is an aggressive weapon-


Edmund Davie Fulton: He can't take it.


George Harris Hees: Don't run away, Wes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Wes doesn't run away.


William Joseph Browne: If the hon.
member will not stay, then I will go ahead and read it just the same, and he can read it tomorrow.


George Harris Hees: You chased him out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the hon. member for Coast-Capilano with him.


William Joseph Browne: It says:
The second practice, called the loss leader device, is an aggressive weapon designed to attract customers for a whole range of goods by a particular type of selective and excessive price cutting.
Mark the words "excessive price cutting".
Usually a well-known brand is used as a loss leader and it is sold at a price which has no direct relation to cost and may even result in a net loss.
That is the definition given by the MacQuarrie committee. I would ask hon. members on the other side of the house to contrast that definition with the definition given by the hon. member for Charlotte. If they have confidence in the MacQuarrie report, and if they have confidence in the committee which prepared the MacQuarrie
Z374	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act report, then what do they think of the opinion of the hon. member for Charlotte when he says the loss leader is the finest thing ever put into effect in Canada for the benefit of the consumer?


George Harris Hees: Well said. Hear, hear.


William Joseph Browne: It is a good many years since I had occasion to study this question of the loss leader. However, about fifteen years ago I was very much interested in the co-operative movement in Newfoundland. One of the things which the co-operative movement had to fight was this loss leader. I remember very well reading a book by Professor Henry Smith, who was quoted with approval the other day by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Henry Smith said that the idea of a co-operative store was to establish a just price. Is that not what we should all want to see, a just price? That would not be the lowest possible price, not a price at which the shopkeepers are losing money, but a just price for every article. Is that not a fair way to look at things? I am sure hon. members opposite would say the same thing.


An hon. Member:: Who establishes the fair price?


William Joseph Browne: I think this subamendment would provide a fair trade commission which would see to it that fair trade prices were established.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do you take the socialist proposition here?


William Joseph Browne: No, it is not
quite the same thing. As I understand the C.C.F. intention, it is that all prices should be regulated.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has the federal government any .authority to do that?


William Joseph Browne: No, but you
are taking the authority to interfere between manufacturer and retailer; and I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his heart does not agree with this legislation at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I would like to bring a file of letters, of complaints I have heard about the working of resale price maintenance, people going broke because they did not dare to cut the price of inventories. They were out of business in either case. If they kept the inventories, they went broke; if they disposed of them they got no more merchandise. That is the sort of letter I have. In other letters they were ordered to raise prices. They did not want to raise them; they were satisfied with the old profit margin. Nevertheless 

they were ordered to raise prices or they would get no more merchandise.


William Joseph Browne: I will not deny that there might be abuses in resale price maintenance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thank you very much.


William Joseph Browne: But I think these things can be regulated, and1 it is the duty of the government to regulate them.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Vote for the bill, then.


William Joseph Browne: This does not regulate them. This abolishes them. That is the purpose of it, to abolish resale price maintenance. I said the other evening-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is that not the purpose of the C.C.F. amendment, to regulate prices?


William Joseph Browne: No. As I
understood the answer given by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr Coldwell) the other day-I am not sure if it was to someone on the other side of the house-I understood him to say that it would be the duty of the state to regulate all prices.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He said nothing of the sort.


William Joseph Browne: I may have misunderstood him but that is the impression I got. You have been advocating it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Where necessary.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member says "Very necessary". Which answer am I to take?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Necessary when necessary, but not necessary when necessary.


William Joseph Browne: In connection with this question of the loss leader, I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce recognizes that that could easily put people out of business. He must know, because he comes from the United States, that in that country there have been many price wars of the kind that occurred the other day in New York, when people were forced out of business. I know that in reading the history of the co-operative movement-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would give me the names of those who were forced out of business in recent price wars.


William Joseph Browne: I have not that information in my mind at the present time.


George Alexander Drew: Well, it might be helpful if the Minister of Trade and Commerce would give us the names of the people who wrote the letters from which he has just quoted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will bring them on Thursday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West has the floor and must not be interrupted.


Irvin William Studer: May I ask a question? In every community there are a number of drug stores; roughly I believe they are apportioned at the rate of about one for every thousand of population. There are the Rexall stores and the Nyal stores. Those stores each year have one cent sales. They sell the same articles at the rate of two for one. I object to that kind of price maintenance. Are they not conducting loss leaders among themselves in their own community?


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very far astray in his statement about the number of drug stores.


Irvin William Studer: My other facts are correct.


William Joseph Browne: I see another hon. member supports him. Well, I took the trouble during the week to look up the number of drug stores in Great Britain and in the United States. I do not know the exact number in Canada, but I could give a very close guess, because I guessed the correct number in Great Britain when I looked into it first. There are between 14,000 and 15,000 in Great Britain, with a population of 50 million.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: How many in Canada?


William Joseph Browne: I would say on the same basis there would be about 4,500. Of course I am only guessing at that, but that would be the rough figure I would give. In the United States with a population of 150 million there are about 55,000 drug stores, and the number has declined between 1938 and 1949 by about 3,000. So on that basis I would say there are between 4,000 and 5,000 drug stores in Canada. But that is a different proposition from what the hon. member has said.


Irvin William Studer: I was referring to western Canada.


William Joseph Browne: I did not
catch the hon. member's question. Would he repeat it?


Irvin William Studer: I was referring to our country out west when I made the statement that in the average town there is about one drug store for every thousand of population. I find that in a town of 5,000 population there are about four drug stores. One will be a Rexall store and the other a Nyal store. Once a year there will be a one-cent sale in the town. We have had comments from the drug trade against this legislation. They have sent the loss leader right into the towns, with no opposition from the other drug stores.
Combines Investigation Act


William Joseph Browne: I agree with the hon. member that these things happen in Ottawa. You need only to go down to the corner of Sparks and Metcalfe streets and you will see a two for one sale. But I think he is wrong about the number of drug stores. I estimated that the number of druggists would be between four or five thousand but I am now informed that there are 4,200 members of the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association. I did not make too bad a guess.


Agar Rodney Adamson: There are 4,308 drug stores in Canada.


William Joseph Browne: The same proportion applies to the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The hon. gentleman referred to these two for one sales, but the fact is that those sales do not take place in connection with resale price maintained articles; they take place in connection with articles which are not governed by resale price maintenance. If anyone with discretion goes into those stores he will be wise not to buy articles that are marked two for one. When the hon. gentleman goes into those stores he will find that the articles which do not sell rapidly are the ones that are being put up like that to catch the gulls who go in. Now, here is the recommendation of the committee in regard to loss leaders. I am sorry the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) is not here to hear me read this recommendation.. If I did not read all of the 872 pages of evidence I am sure that the hon. gentleman did not read this report, or he would not have made the statement he did about loss leaders. They state that the loss leader device is a practice which does not promote the general welfare.
Hon. members applauded the hon. member for Charlotte when he read statements from the Woodward brief. What is their view now? Do they approve of the MacQuarrie report or do they approve of the opinion of the hon. member for Charlotte. I approve of certain things they say and I approve of that, but I do not approve of the opinion of the hon. member for Charlotte. I should like to know if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), with whom he was sitting cheek by jowl a few moments ago, approves of the opinion of the hon. member for Charlotte. We ought to have some logic in the debates in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh.


William Joseph Browne: I submit that what I am saying is logical. I ask the Minister of Justice, when he makes his reply, especially to tell us what he thinks of the opinion of the hon. member for Charlotte, not only on that but on other practices he has recommended. The committee went on to

Combines Investigation Act state that it considered it was not compatible to the public interest. What do hon. members think of that opinion of the committee as compared with the opinion of the hon. member for Charlotte, that it was the best thing ever put into effect in Canada for the benefit of the consumer? When a member of the Liberal party gets up in this house he gets applause from the other side, but if a member of the Conservative party gets up he will not get any applause even though he is reading from the committee report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Do you feel better now?


William Joseph Browne: Hon. members are applauding, but I do not think they realize what they are applauding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Charlotte made a very superficial speech which seemed to please hon. members on the other side. He was endorsing in general what the government is trying to do, but I submit that he has not any conception of what is at stake in this matter. He has no realization of what is contained in the report he was supposed to have been studying while a member of the committee. I do not know what he was doing on that committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He was doing what the chairman told him to do.


William Joseph Browne: He does not even approve of this report. The hon. gentleman said it was the big guy that was worrying, not the little fellow. Then he went on to read with approval a letter written by the big guy, Woodward Stores Limited, to the chairman of the committee. Let us be logical about this thing. Are Woodward stores worrying? Yes; they are worrying lest this thing does not go through. That is what they are worrying about. Let us listen to what the big guy has to say and let us then hear what the Liberals have to say about it. I dismiss the opinions of the hon. member for Charlotte because they are not worth considering.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Go ahead and hang yourself.


William Joseph Browne: I commend to the attention of my hon. friends over there what was read with such great approval by the hon. member for Charlotte, and I quote:
The whole of our Canadian economy is geared-


An hon. Member:: You are on the wrong page.


William Joseph Browne: Is the hon.
member asking a question?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He cannot read himself.


William Joseph Browne: Here is what was read by the hon. member for Charlotte.
An. hon. Member: What page?


William Joseph Browne: I beg your pardon, page 819. I am reading from the letter which was read with such approval by the hon. member for Charlotte.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What book?


William Joseph Browne: The proceedings of the combines legislation committee. I suppose the hon. gentleman has not heard of it and he should be interested. If I may proceed.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I read that every night before I went to sleep.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Springfield has no idea what is going on.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I read that book from cover to cover.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You still would not know.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Another smart crack from you.


William Joseph Browne: This reads:
The whole of our Canadian economy is geared to a free enterprise system. It is the basis of our political creed. The man in the street has faith in it.
Listen to this:
He believes that sooner or later unfettered competition-
What does that mean?
-and the laws of supply and demand will defeat the bogey of inflation.
Do hon. members on the other side, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), does the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) approve of unfettered competition?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question.


William Joseph Browne: No, I do not
want any questions from you.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You are afraid of the question.


William Joseph Browne: There is not a member on that side of the house, there is not a member of the government who realizes what unfettered competition means, who will approve of it. The hon. member for Charlotte was applauded when he read that letter, and especially by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair).


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: On a question of privilege, I should like to ask the hon. member who is speaking a fair question-


An hon. Member:: That is not a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: I do not think there is any question of privilege.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: He is afraid he cannot answer the question.


William Joseph Browne: Let us consider for a moment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: I would ask hon. members on both sides of the house to observe decorum in the house.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I take it you have good intentions. I would ask hon. members to consider for a moment what is meant by unfettered competition, unbridled competition, no restraint upon business at all, the law of supply and demand working to its utmost capacity. What does it mean? It means that all the rich men go into the market and collar everything. Despite what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) may say, they corner the wheat, they corner the butter, they corner the eggs and sell them for as high a price as they can get. That is what is meant by unfettered competition. That is what is meant by the law of supply and demand being allowed to work. The government has to step in to protect the wheat grower. It has to protect the butter producer, the egg producer, the fish producer. Everybody in the community is protected against the working, of the law of supply and demand.
In connection with resale price maintenance, how does it work? Take the manufacturer. He has his capital investment upon which he has to pay a dividend if he is to remain in business. Above all he has to pay his workmen. How does he pay his workmen? Generally they are unionized, and he has to pay a fixed price sometimes set by collective bargaining or through some agency of the government. Nevertheless it has been the practice for many years now for manufacturers to pay the wages demanded of them, and that is done by fixation of some kind. Is it so absurd that manufacturers, who have to pay a fixed price for a part of the cost of the products they produce, should make an agreement with retailers as to what the
Combines Investigation Act ultimate product shall be sold for? It is only reasonable that the manufacturer should be able to sell at a fixed price, and it is not unreasonable that he should talk with the retailer about what a reasonable profit would be.
Getting back to that unfettered competition that is so approved of, we are all familiar, although perhaps not so familiar as we might be, with the beginning of the industrial revolution in England when machinery was first invented. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) referred to what occurred in the days so highly approved of by Adam Smith when men, women and children were crowded into ugly tenements close to the factories and children of the smallest size were put to work at the machines. That was unfettered competition. We have got a long way from that. Does the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) want us to go back to that sort of thing? That is what unfettered competition means if he wants to go back to it, the law of supply and demand.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture are continuously being haggled in the house about what they are doing for the wheat growers or farmers in various lines. Suppose some of the big packing houses of Canada were allowed to store huge quantities of produce and sell them at any prices they felt like. There have been complaints that that has happened. Suppose they bought eggs at 20 cents a dozen and sold them for 65 cents. Suppose they bought butter for 30 or 40 cents a pound and sold it for 60 cents a pound. Would there not be complaints from my hon. friends to the left who represent farming communities? Surely there would, and the same thing applies to any industry. We have to have regulation of business, it is true.


An hon. Member:: Ask the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott).


William Joseph Browne: All sorts of labour laws, laws regulating workmen and laws regulating the sale of produce have been put on the statute books of different countries in the last one hundred and fifty years. Certainly there is no doubt that unfettered competition is dead, but in this particular case it will be revived if the bill goes through. Therefore I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that he should give consideration to the subamendment that has been brought before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the atmosphere of growing warmth towards participants in this

Combines Investigation Act debate to say a few further words. It seems to me that as we approach closer to the Christmas season the good spirit of charity is at last beginning to prevail in this chamber. We have listened to speeches mostly from this side of the house. Unfortunately we have not heard many of the private members opposite contribute to this debate. I can understand the reason for that, because in listening to the discussion it has become quite evident that the main conclusion evolving therefrom is that the bill is suspect. There is a great deal of suspicion arising from the contemplation of the proposed legislation, mainly because sufficient evidence has not been produced as to its merits or demerits.
I say it is obvious. That opinion has been expressed on this side of the house. I was not privileged to participate in the activities of the special committee, but it is unfortunate that its deliberations were cut off before the retail merchants association had a chance to make their representations. I say that because our discussion seems to be boiling down to the respective merits of the retail merchants' case and the case for the large chain stores. We might have avoided all the confusion in discussing this topic if there had been ample opportunity for presentation of the retail merchants' viewpoint at the committee level. We on this side of the house have stated our attitude toward the bill. What about the other side? I have here the Winnipeg Tribune of December 18, and I should like to read a paragraph from the column "Ottawa Notebook" written by Mr. Arthur Blakely to indicate that there is a good deal of suspicion amongst members on the other side of the house if only it had been allowed utterance. Here is what the writer of the column has to say:
There are mutterings within the Liberal ranks too-
That is quite obvious. I can hear them now in this chamber.
-over the proposed ban on price maintenance. One night this week four or five Liberal M.P.'s buttonholed Justice Minister Garson in the Liberal lobby and insisted that he justify the legislation. Within minutes the group surrounding the minister numbered an even dozen. Before it ended his audience numbered close to thirty-almost all of them backbenchers. Questioning was hot and heavy before Garson satisfied the last skeptic and made good his escape.
These mutterings and ominous rumblings or grumblings from the government side, as the newspapers have described them, have obviously continued and would indicate that there is considerable suspicion regarding the legislation before the house. In the previous remarks I made on this subject I dealt with the dangers of centralization. I

am very interested in the problem of centralization, the tendency toward bigness, because I represent a riding that has suffered considerably economically, politically and educationally from the effects of the increasing trend toward centralization. I pointed out, for example, that there is this tendency toward bigness in government. I based a question on that, as to whether it was a desirable or good thing to have government assume more and more control over the lives of individuals. Then, of course, a concomitant situation to the centralization trend is the tendency for population to concentrate in huge metropolitan areas, which generates the social problems of which we are only too keenly aware in our larger cities.
Now in Manitoba generally, and particularly that part of the province from which 1 come, we have been making progress against this trend toward centralization. I might be pardoned for labouring the viewpoint of my constituency-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I might rise to a point of order? I do so with great respect for the hon. member who is now speaking, but it seems to me we have now reached a point in this debate where the rules of debate might be complied with by all of us a little more closely than, is sometimes the case. I thought the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) did a service last evening when he drew attention to citation 338 in Beauchesne's third edition. If I might presume to say so, I thought Your Honour made an excellent ruling on the point. Citation 338 deals with the situation when there is an amendment to a motion. I need not go over all the ground that the member for Winnipeg South Centre dealt with, but may I just quote the last sentence of that important citation:
In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
Your Honour ruled, and I thought quite fairly on the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, that when there was a motion and an amendment before the house as alternative propositions it was possible and perhaps desirable, that they should be discussed in relation to each other. But what about the situation when we have a subamendment? There is now before the house a subamendment to the amendment. I admit that the terms of the subamendment are by way of alternative to the amendment, but I would say that although it is possible in discussing the subamendment to discuss its terms in relation to the terms of the amendment, it should not be possible at this

stage of the debate to go behind the amendment to discuss not only the main motion itself but to discuss things which may not even be related to the main motion.
I submit that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) at the moment is a long way from what is before the house, namely, the relationship between two alternatives, that of the amendment of my leader -and that of the subamendment moved by the Progressive Conservative group. The point of order I raise is this: should not the debate at this time be confined at least to the relative merits of the amendment and the subamendment?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think the point the hon. member has overlooked is the fact that, at the moment, we are dealing with the amendment as amended by the subamendment. We are not dealing with alternatives, but we are dealing with the amendment as amended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has not been amended yet.


George Alexander Drew: The subamendment is before the house, and the subamendment places before the house the proposal that this bill should not be dealt with now. I would point out that this is the proposal put forward by the leader of the C.C.F. party. Then, the subamendment suggests the desirability of considering the wisdom of having a fair trade commission. In considering that, it seems obvious that the whole field affected by this bill must be discussed if we are to know how desirable it is that a fair trade commission should be considered, and how desirable it is also that there should be ample time to consider the details of this bill and its impact upon business generally. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the very nature of this motion by way of subamendment makes very relevant every possible aspect of this problem to which the bill relates.


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty is that the debate has been continuing for some time, and I think all members have been discussing the main motion, the amendment and the subamendment. It is extremely difficult at this late date to say that in future members cannot have as wide a latitude in discussion as members who have already spoken. I am glad the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) brought this matter to my attention. Probably if the matter should arise on another occasion I should give further consideration to his point of order. (See Beauchesne's second edition, citation 414). But in view of the fact that the debate has gone on for so long in the manner
Combines Investigation Act in which it has, I doubt if it would be fair to interrupt it at this time.
I see that it is now ten o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Dinsdale the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: May I make this remark. If it be true that we have been discussing the principle of the bill, the amendment and the subamendment would it not be logical that we vote on those three things at the same time? Before announcing the business of the house for December 27, I want to extend to every member my best wishes for a merry Christmas and a safe return to Bill No. 36, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act, which will be the first item of business on that day. Then, if it is disposed of, we shall take up the government notice of motion in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and then all the other bills remaining on the order paper.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I reciprocate by joining in the good wishes for Christmas, and hoping that everyone has an extremely happy new year. That brings me to a question that perhaps the house leader could answer. Is it intended to sit on New Year's day?


Alphonse Fournier: I am quite convinced that when we reach that bridge we shall find a way of crossing it-


George Alexander Drew: It is only, of course, that it would be desirable for some of the members to know what arrangements they should make. I can only hope that after the government and the members of the house have enjoyed a merry Christmas, the suggestion that has been made will be followed and we shall not be dealing with Bill No. 36 but with other items of business, in which case I am sure we would proceed with expedition.


Alphonse Fournier: So no doubt will remain in the minds of hon. members, the government and the house will proceed with this bill on the 27th.


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of each hon. member I extend to all the members of this house a wish for a very merry Christmas.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, until Thursday, December 27, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 21, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 27, 1951